Third Division:, ,, ,, Gate
Third Division:, ,, ,, Gate
Third Division:, ,, ,, Gate
Promulgated:
RODRIGO MACASPACy ISIP,
Accused-Appellant. February 22, 2017
x--------------------------------------------------------~--~-x
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
When the victim was alerted to the impending lethal attack due to the
preceding heated argument between him and the accused, with the latter
even uttering threats against the former, treachery cannot be appreciated as
an attendant circumstance. When the resolve to commit the cnme was
immediately followed its execution, evident premeditation cannot be
appreciated. Hence, the crime is homicide, not murder.
The Case
On leave.
In lie u of Justice Francis H . Jard e leza , who inh ibited due to prior partic ipatio n as the Solicitor General,
r.er the raffl e of February 20 , 2 01 7.
Designated as add itiona l Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 24 I 7 dated Jan uary 4 ,
20 17.
I
Rollo, pp. 2- 14; penne d by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario w ith Assoc iate Justice Hakim S.
Abdulwahid (retired) and Associate Justice Danton Q . Bueser concurring.
Decision 2 GR. No. 198954
rendered in Criminal Case No. C-31494 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 129, in Caloocan City declaring him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of murder for the killing of Robert Jebulan y Pelaez (Jebulan). 2
Antecedents
The case was archived for more than 15 years becetuse Macaspac had
gone into hiding and remained at large until his arrest on July 28, 2004.
Upon his arraignment on August 31, 2004, he pleaded not guilty to the
foregoing information. 4
CA rollo, pp . 2 1-36; penned by Presiding Judge Thelma Canlas Trin idad-Pe Aguirre.
Rollo, p. 3.
Id.
ld. at 3-4.
Id. at 4 .
Id . at 5.
"x
Decision 3 G.R. No. 198954
Atty. Sanchez
However, Macaspac later on claimed that Jebu lan had been stabbed by
accident when he fell on the knife. Macaspac denied being the person with
whom Jebulan had the argument, which he insisted had been between
Barcomo and one Danny. According to him, he tried to pacify their
argument, but his effort angered Jebu1an, who drew out the knife and tried to
stab him. He fortunately evaded the stab thrust of Jebulan, whom he struck
with a wooden chair to defend himself. The blow caused Jebulan to fall on
the knife, puncturing his chest. 9 -
Costs de oficio.
so ORDERED. 11
1
11
CA rollo. pp. 2 1-36.
Id . at 35.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 198954
SO ORDERED. 12
Alas, Macaspac did not discharge his burden. It is noteworthy that the
CA rejected his claim of self-defense by highlighting the fact that Jebulan
had not engaged in any unlawful aggression against him. Instead, the CA
observed that Jebulan was already running away from the scene when
Macaspac stabbed him. The CA expressed the fo llowing apt impressions of
the incident based on Macaspac's own declarations in court, viz.:
12
Supra note I, at 13.
1J Rollo, p. 29.
14
People v. Pili, G.R. No. 124739, April 15, 1998, 289 SCRA 11 8, 131.
15
Rollo, p. 8.
?1
Decision 5 GR. No. 198954
ACPAzarcon
xx xx
Q - How cou ld you (appellant) hit him (Jebulan) at his back when
you were facing him?
A - When I picked up the chair, when I was about to hit him with
the chair, Obet turned his back to ran (sic) from me, sir.
A - Yes, sir, because he saw me, I was already holding the chair,
sir. (Emphasi s suppli ed)
Macaspac's initial claim that he and Jebul an had scuffled for the
possession of the knife, and that he had stabbed Jebulan only after grabbing
the knife from the latter became incompatible with his subsequent statement
of only striking Jebulan with the wooden chair, causing the latter to fall on
the knife. The incompatibility, let a lone the implausibility of the recantation,
manifested the lack of credibility of Macaspac as a witness.
Both the RTC 17 and the CA 18 concluded that Macaspac had suddenly
attacked the completely unarmed and defenseless Jebulan; and that
Macaspac did not thereby give Jebulan the opportunity to retaliate, or to
defend himself, or to take fli ght, or to avoid the deadly assault.
This is where we differ from the lower courts. We cannot uphold their
conclusion on the attendance of treachery.
16
Id . at9- IO.
17
Supra note 2, at 35.
IH S upra note I , at I I .
Deci sion 6 G.R. No. 19895 4
Based on the records, Macaspac and Jebulan were out drinking along
with others when they had an argument that soon became heated, causing the
former to leave the group and punctuating his leaving with the warning that
he would be back "to sweep them," the vernacular for killing the others
(ffintayin n yo aka d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo). His utterance was a threat of
an impending attack. Shortly thereafter, Macaspac returned to the group
wielding the knife, immediately confronted and directly taunted Jebulan
(Ano?), and quickly stabbed the latter on the chest, and then fled. The attack,
even if it was sudden, .did not constitute treachery. He did not mount the
attack with surprise because the heated argument between him and the
victim and his angry threat of going back "to sweep them" had sufficiently
forewarned the latter of the impending lethal assault.
Macaspac 's having suddenly left the group and his utterance of
Hintayin n yo aka d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo marked the time of his resolve
19
Art icle 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code.
20
People v. Flores, G.R. N o. 137497, February 5, 2004, 422 SC RA 9 1, 97.
21
People v. Sarabia, GR. No. 1061 02, October 29, 1999, 3 17 SC RA 684, 694.
22
People v. Torpio, GR. N o. 13 89 84 , June 4, 2004, 43 1 SCRA 9, 15; People v. Delos Reyes, G. R. No .
140680, May 28, 2 004, 430 SC.RA 166, 178; People v. Factao, G. R. No. 12S966, Jan uary 13, 2004, 4 19
SC RA 38, 57; People v. Catbagan, G. R. Nos. 149430-32, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 53S, S6S ; People
v. Garcia, G. R. N o. I S3S9 I, Februa ry 23, 2004, 423 SCRA S83, 588; People v. Mont~jo, No. L-688S7,
Nove mber 2 1, 1988, 167 SCRA 506, S 13; People v. Diva, G. R. No. L-22946, April 29, 1968, 23 SCRA
332, 340; People v. Ardisa, No. L-293S 1, January 23, 1974, SS SCRA 24S, 259.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 198954
to commit the crime. His returning to the group with the knife manifested his
clinging to his resolve to inflict lethal harm on the others. The first and
second elements of evident premeditation were thereby established. But it is
the essence of this circumstance that the execution of the criminal act be
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolve to carry out the
criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment.23 Was the lapse of time between the determination and execution -
a matter of three minutes, based on the records - sufficient to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act? By quickly returning to the group
with the knife, he let no appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon
his resolve to carry out his criminal intent. It was as if the execution
immediately followed the resolve to commit the . crime. As such, the third
requisite was absent.
2
J People v. Tagana, GR. No. 133023, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 620, 634; People 1~ Borbon, GR. No.
143085, March 10, 2004 , 425 SCRA 178, 189; People v. Factao, GR. No. 125966, Janu ary 13, 2004, 4 19
SCRA 38 , 57; Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1987 Ed., Vo l. I, p. 352, citing People v. Durante, 53 Phil.
363 (1 929); a nd People v. Camo, 9 1 Phil. 240 ( 1952).
24
76 Phi l. 4 73, 479 ( I 946).
25
Section I. Hereafter, in im pos in g a prison sentence fo r an offense punished by the Revised Penal
Code, or its amend ments, the cou rt shall sentence th e accused to an indetermi nate sentence th e maximum
term of w hi ch sha ll be th at w hi ch, in v iew of the attend ing c ircumsta nces, coul d be properly imposed under
the rul es o f the sa id Code, and the mini mu m whi ch sha ll be w ithin the range of the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by the Code fo r th e offense; a nd if the offense is punished by any other law, the court sha ll
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, th e max imum term of w hich sha ll not exceed the
max im um fix ed by said la w a nd th e minimum sha ll not be less th an the minimum term prescribed by th e
same. (As amended by A ct No. 4225)
Decision 8 G.R. No. 198954
26
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. -- In cases in which the
penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of
three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76
and 77, the court shall observe for the ctpplication of the penalty the following rules, according to whether
th ere are or are not 111 itigating or aggravating circumstances:
I. When there arc neither aggravating nor miti gating circumst a nces, they shall impose the
p enalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
xx xx
27
People v. Jug ueta, GR. No. 202 124, April 5, 2016.
2s Id.
29
See Nacar v. Gal!e1y Frames, GR. No. 18987 1, August 13, 201 3, 703 SCRA 439, 459.
-8
Decision 9 GR. No. 198954
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
J. VELASCO, JR.
(On Leave)
.BIENVENIDO L. RE .
Associate Justic
S. CAGUIOA
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the abov ecision had been reached in
consu ltation before the case was assigned t the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION
THIRD DIVISION
Promulgated:
POWER FACTORS, INC.,
Respondent. March 8 , 2017
,\---------------------------------------------------~---~----x
DE CISI ON
BERSAMIN, J.:
The Case
Designated as additiona l Member of the Th ird Div is ion per Spec ial Order No. 24 17 elated January 4,
20 17.
I
Ro/In. pp. 32-4 5; pen ned by Associate Jus tice Leonc ia R. Dimag iba and concurred in by Associate
Justice Ros mari D. C arandang and Associate Ju sti ce Ri cardo R. Rosario.
2
lei . at 98-128.
Deci sion 2 G.R. No. 211504
Antecedents
Id. at 33 .
Id.
Id. at 44 .
6
Id. at 34-35 .
Id. at 35 .
~
Decision 3 G.R. No. 21 1504
On February 8, 2010, the CIAC issued an order setting the case for
hea ring, and directing that Federal 's motion to di sm iss be resolved after the
reception of evidence of the parties. 8
P-9,369,238.87
The fo regoing amount shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of this Pinal Award unti l this award becomes final
and executory, C laimant shal l then be entitled to 12% per annum until the
e ntire amount is fully satisfi ed by Respond ent.
Id.
~ Supra note 2.
10
Supra note l.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 2 11504
Issue
11
Id . at 44-45.
12
Id. a l 38.
13
Id. at 42-43.
14
Rollo, p. 47.
~
Decision 5 G.R. No. 211504
1.
The parties had an effective agreement
to submit to voluntary arbitration;
hence, the CIAC had jurisdiction
15
Rul e 4, CIAC Revised Rules; U CO MC EN. Inc. v. Foundation Specialists. Inc., GR. Nos. I 67022 &
I 69678, April 4, 20 I I , 647 SCR/\ 83, 97.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 2 11504
in writing, but it need not be signed hy the pa rties, as long as the intent
is clear that the parties agree to submit a present or future
controversy arising from a construction contract to arbitration. lt
may be in the form of exchange of letters sent by post or by telefax,
telexes, telegrams, electronic mail or any other mode of
communication.
Under Article 131 8 of the Civil Code, a valid contract shoul d have the
fo llowing essential elements, namely: (a) consent of the contracting parties;
(b) object certain that is the subj ect matter of the contract; and (c) cause or
consideration. Moreover, a contract does not need to be in writing in order
to be obligatory and effecti ve unless the law specifically requires so.
1
" See perambulator")' clauses of E.O. No. 1008.
17
Narional frrigation Administr.:nion v. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 129169, November 17, 1999, 3 18
SC RA 255, 269.
'>?
Decision 7 G.R. No . 2 11 504
It clearly appears that the works prom ised to be done by Power were
alread y executed albeit sti II incomplete; that Federal p aid Power
P 1,000,000.00 representing the originally proposed down payment, and the
latter accepted the payment; and that the subject of their dispute concern ed
only the amounts still du e to Power. Th e records furth er show that Federal
admitted hav ing drafted the Contract of Serv ices containing the follo wing
clause on submi ssion to arbitration , to w it:
T he CIAC and the CA both found that the p arties had di sagreed on the
amount of the downpay ment. On its part, P ower indicated after receiving
an d reviewing th e draft of the Contract of Servi ce that it wanted 30% as th e
downpayment. Even so, Power did not modify anything else in the draft, an d
returned the draft to Federal after signing it. It was Federal that di d not sign
the draft because it was not amenable to t he amount as modified by Power.
It is notable th at the arbitration clause written in the draft of Federal was
unchallenged by the parti es until their dispute arose.
18
Artic le I 356. Contrac ts sha ll b e obligatory, in wh a te ve r form they may have been e nte red into,
prov ided a ll th e essentia l req u is ites for their valid ity are pres ent. However, wh en the la w requires that a
co ntract be in some form in ord er th at it m ay be va lid o r e nforceable, or that a contract be proved in a
certa in way, that requi re ment is abso lute a nd ind is pe ns abl e . In s uc h cases, the rig ht of th e parti es stated in
the fo llowi ng arti c le ca nnot be exerc ised.
19
Articl e I 357. Ir the law req ui res a doc ume nt or othe r s pecia l form , as in the ac ts and contracts
e num e rated in th e followin g artic le, the contracting pa rties may compe l each other to observe that form ,
o nce the con tract has bee n per fected . T h is ri ght may be ex erc ised s imultaneous ly with th e act ion upon l he
contract.
20
Rollo, p. 34.
Decis ion 8 G.R. No. 2 11 504
21 Id.
22
Secti on 4. Form of arbitration agreement. - A contract to arbitrate a controversy thereafter arising
between the parti es, as we ll as a submiss ion to arbitrate an existing controversy, shall be in wri ting and
subsc ribed by the party sought to be charged, or by his lawfu l agent.
The making of a contract or submission fo r arbitration described in section two hereof, providing for
arbitration of any controversy, shall be deemed a consent of th e parties of th e provin ce or city where any of
the parties res ides, to enforce such contract or submission.
D An Act lo Authorize the Making of Arbitration and Submission Agreements, to Provide for the
Appointment of Arbitrators and the Procedure j(Jr Arbitration in Civil Controversies, and for Other
Purposes; June 19, 1953.
24
Subsection 4. 1.2, Ru le 4 of the CIAC Revised Rules.
25
LM Power Engineering Corporation v. Capitol Industrial Construction Croups, Inc., G. R. No. 14 1833,
March 26, 2003 , 399 SCRA 562, 569.
26
Id . at 570.
~
Decision 9 GR. No. 211504
2.
Amounts as modified by the CA are correct
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
J. VELASCO, JR.
A s ociate Justice
16~
./BJENVENlDO L. REY S A
L Associate Justice
S. CAGUIOA
l attest that the conclusions in the above D eci ~) i o had been reached
in consul tation before the case was assigned to the w iter of the opinion of
the Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION