People V. Enguito.docx

Case Number 26 People v. Enguito (Janine) G.R. No. 15 Dec. 2000 | Bellosillo, J. | Aggravating circumstance; by means of motor vehicle PETITIONER: People of the Philippines RESPONDENTS: Thadeos Enguito DOCTRINE: The use of a motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder if the same was perpetrated by means thereof. Enguito’s claim that he merely Enguito's claim that he merely used the motor vehicle, Kia Ceres van, to stop the victim from escaping is belied by his actuations. By his own admission, he testified that there was a police mobile patrol near the crossing. He could have easily sought the assistance of the police instead of taking the law into his own hands. Moreover, he already noticed the deceased trying to jump out of the motorela but he still continued his pursuit. He did not stop the vehicle after hitting the deceased who was hit when he (Achumbre) was at the railing of the Marcos bridge. Enguito further used the vehicle in his attempt to escape. He was already more than one (1) kilometer away from the place of the incident that he stopped his vehicle upon seeing the police mobile patrol which was following him. FACTS: 1. On or about September 22, 1991, Felipe Requerme was driving a motorela, together with his wife Rosita and another passenger, Engr. Wilfredo Achumbre, who is the deceased in this case. The deceased was picked up by them on their way home and requested them to bring him to his house. While on their way, a white vehicle, which was later on identified as a Ceres Kia automobile bearing Plate No. 722, intentionally hit and pushed the motorela that they were riding and violently kept pushing it causing it to turn around facing the direction from where it came from and fell on its right side. 2. Rosita testified that while she was struggling out of the motorela she noticed that the white vehicle went up the elevated catwalk or pathway pursuing Achumbre who was hit when he was already at the railing (barandilla). Then she observed that the white vehicle drove away without even caring to see what happened to them. The spouses/victims were brought to the police station while the Achumbre was brought to the hospital who was declared dead on arrival. 3. It was later on found out upon investigation that said incident was predicated on the earlier fight which transpired between Achumbre and the driver of the motor vehicle, Thadeos Enguito, the accused in this case. As a result of the death of Achumbre, his wife filed a criminal complaint against the accused.

4.

5.

6.

The Regional Trial Court found him guilty with the crime of Homicide with Less Serious Physical Injuries, taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle which was alleged in the information. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter modified the crime to Murder due to the aggravating circumstance. The accused went to the Supreme Court imputing error on the decision of the Court of Appeals with respect to the declaration of the crime of Murder against him on the ground that he did not intentionally choose the motor vehicle he was driving as a means of committing the offense, and that at most, the vehicle was the only available means to stop the deceased from escaping. He argued that it was his intention to apprehend and surrender the deceased to the police for his previous act of mauling him but in the process, he killed the deceased.

ISSUE: WON the crime committed by Thadeos was qualified with the aggravating circumstance of its perpetration with the use of a motor vehicle. – YES. HELD: 1. The use of a motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder if the same was perpetrated by means thereof. Enguito's claim that he merely used the motor vehicle, Kia Ceres van, to stop the victim from escaping is belied by his actuations. 2. By his own admission, he testified that there was a police mobile patrol near the crossing. He could have easily sought the assistance of the police instead of taking the law into his own hands. Moreover, he already noticed the deceased trying to jump out of the motorela but he still continued his pursuit. 3. He did not stop the vehicle after hitting the deceased who was hit when he (Achumbre) was at the railing of the Marcos bridge. Enguito further used the vehicle in his attempt to escape. He was already more than one (1) kilometer away from the place of the incident that he stopped his vehicle upon seeing the police mobile patrol which was following him. 4. The crime committed by Enguito is the complex crime of murder with less serious physical injuries. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a complex crime shall be the maximum period of the penalty for the most serious crime. The crime was committed in 1992 where the penalty for the crime of murder, which is the most serious crime, was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 5. The death penalty being the maximum period of the penalty for murder should be imposed for the complex crime of murder with less serious physical injuries considering that under Article 63, an indivisible penalty cannot be affected by the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

6.

People vs. Muñoz - Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution did not change the period of the penalty for murder except only insofar as it prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua, the Court of Appeals was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the decision convicting accused-appellant Thadeos Enguito of the complex crime of Murder with Less Serious Physical Injuries and sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of deceased Wilfredo Achumbre the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P1,680,000.00 for loss of earning capacity; P 16,300.00 as actual damages; P 50,000.00 as moral damages; and to further pay the spouses Felipe and Rosita Requerme the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages. SO ORDERED.