Activity - Legal Research and Legal Writing

February 27, 2024

Instructions

• Please read the following cases

• People vs Magpalo, 172608, February 6, 2007

• Heirs of Tomas Dolleton vs Fil-Estate Management, Inc GR no 170750, April 7, 2009

• Define the words in Column A – Parts of Supreme Court Decision

• Supply the following information for each case. You are expected to submit two
tables.

• Submit this activity in a printed format, short bond paper, Arial 12 , on March 5 2024
(Tuesday)

• SUBMITTED BY: JONATHAN YULO ISANAN- JD 1

Column A Column B
Citation G.R. No. 172608 February 6, 2007
Caption PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff- appellee,
Bernardo Mapalo, Accused- Appellant
Ponente Minita V. Chico-Nazario
Nature of the Case In its Decision1 dated 27 October 2004, the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 32 of Agoo, La Union, in Criminal Case
No. A-2871, found appellant Bernard Mapalo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and imposed upon
him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Court
of Appeals rendered a Decision2 dated 21 November 2005,
modifying the Decision of the RTC, and finding Bernard
Mapalo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Frustrated Murder.
Factual Background That on or about the 13th day of February, 1994, in the
Municipality of Aringay, Province of La Union, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill and being then
armed with lead pipes and bladed weapons and conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and
there by means of treachery and with evident premeditation
and taking advantage of their superior strength, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal
violence on one Manuel Piamonte y Ugay by clubbing him
with the said pipes and stabbing him several times with the
 said bladed weapons, and thereby inflicting on the
aforenamed victim fatal injuries which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice
of his heirs.
Ruling of the Lower Court In its Decision dated 27 October 2004, the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 32 of Agoo, La Union, in Criminal Case
No. A-2871, found appellant Bernard Mapalo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and imposed upon
him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision2 dated
21 November 2005, modifying the Decision of the RTC, and
finding Bernard Mapalo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Frustrated Murder.
Argument The prosecution's case relies heavily on Calixto Garcia's
testimony, the sole eyewitness. Garcia recounts events from
a pre-Valentine dance on February 12, 1994, where he, the
appellant, and Jimmy Frigillana were present. He claims a
confrontation ensued between Manuel Piamonte and a
group including Lando Mapalo, Jimmy Frigillana, and the
appellant, resulting in Piamonte's death. Garcia asserts he
saw the appellant strike Piamonte from behind with a lead
pipe, but he didn't witness the stabbing itself or identify the
perpetrator. He does not know who stabbed the latter. It was
only when Piamonte’s shirt was removed when he saw stab
wounds on the former’s dead body.

Counter-argument The appellant and his wife provided alibi defenses, stating
they were at home entertaining guests until midnight on
February 13, 1994, after which they retired to bed. They
claimed ignorance of the altercation until the wife was
awakened by commotion at 3:00 a.m. near the nearby dance
hall. The wife confirmed the appellant did not leave the
house, and they both witnessed the aftermath of the incident
at the dance hall. This testimony supports their assertion of
innocence, presenting an alternative narrative to the
prosecution's version of events.

The Court of Appeals, however, found reason to modify the

findings of the RTC. It convicted the appellant of frustrated
murder only. It was not convinced that the evidence on
record established conspiracy among the appellant and his
co-accused. The appellate court rationalized that while the
evidence shows that Piamonte sustained stab wounds which
 caused his death, the appellant was never identified as the
one who inflicted the stab wounds on the deceased.
According to the appellate court, the prosecution's evidence
only established that the appellant clubbed Piamonte with a
lead pipe. However, the prosecution's witness did not see
the stabbing. He was not able to describe the particular acts
which caused Piamonte's death. Hence, it cannot be inferred
from the account of the witness that the appellant and his
co-accused came to an agreement to commit a felony, or
that they decided to commit the same, by concerted acts.
In the first place, the killing was the result of a fight that
erupted suddenly during the Valentine dance, which
discourages the conclusion that the killing was planned.
Also, the witness did not see any stabbing. He did not see
anyone else perform any act of stabbing or hitting, other
than the appellant delivering blows with a lead pipe on the
victim. There is no proof, therefore, of any concerted action
or common design to kill the victim that could be the basis
for a finding of conspiracy among several malefactors.
Because of this, it could not be said that conspiracy was
proven attendant beyond reasonable doubt.
In the absence of a conspiracy, the Court of Appeals said
that the appellant could only be held liable for the
consequences of his own criminal act. It ruled that when the
appellant hit Piamonte in the head with the lead pipe, he
performed all the acts that would have brought about the
death of the victim. Piamonte’s death however was due to
some other supervening cause, independent of the
appellant’s will.
Issues 1. Whether or not conspiracy is committed to qualify the
conviction of murder.
2. Whether or not the pieces of evidence presented bty the
prosecution warrants the frustrated murder.
Discussion/Supreme Court
Ruling
1. To reiterate, the RTC, in convicting the appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder,
proceeded from a rationalization that there was conspiracy
among appellant and his co-accused. It also appreciated the
attendance of abuse of superior strength to qualify the
crime to Murder.

The Court of Appeals was unable to agree with the RTC. It

found that the conspiracy was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. It ruled that the witness Garcia admitted
to not being able to see the stabbing. He could only attest to
the clubbing of the victim by appellant with a lead pipe. No
proof was shown as to the concerted action of the
malefactors of their common design to kill. The CA, thus,
modified the RTC’s conviction, and, instead, found
appellant guilty of frustrated murder.

There is a want of evidence to show the concerted acts of

the appellant and his co-accused in pursuing a common
design - to kill the deceased, Piamonte. The sole eyewitness
for the prosecution, Garcia, was categorical and precise in
declaring that he did not see the act of stabbing Piamonte,
nor the manner in which Piamonte was stabbed. He later
learned that Piamonte died from stab wounds when he saw
the latter's dead body covered with stab wounds. The cause
of death of Piamonte, as found by the RTC and the Court of
Appeals, and as borne by the records, is multiple stab
wounds. It was, thus, incumbent on the part of the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant and his co-accused acted in concert with a unity of
purpose to kill Piamonte. They must show to the satisfaction
of this Court the appellant's overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the complicity. They must show that
appellant’s act of striking Piamonte with a pipe was an
intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the
furtherance of the common design and purpose.

This complete absence of evidence on the part of the

prosecution to show the conduct of the appellant and
his co-accused, disclosing a common understanding
among them relative to the commission of the offense,
is fatal to the prosecution. The prosecution's witness could
not testify on the manner by which the deceased Piamonte
was stabbed, precisely because by his own admission, he
did not see the stabbing. No account of the stabbing which
caused the death of the deceased Piamonte was ever given
nor shown. Unfortunately, no account of how Piamonte
died was ever given, except for the established fact that
he died due to stabbing. The appellant’s act of holding a
lead pipe and hitting the deceased in the head was not
shown to be in furtherance of the common design of killing
the deceased. What transpired during the stabbing of the
victim, which is material to proving the fact of conspiracy, is,
regrettably, left merely to speculation. This Court must
neither conjecture nor surmise that a conspiracy existed.
The rule is clear that the guilt of the accused must be
proved with moral certainty. All doubts should be
resolved in favor of the accused. Thus, the time honored
principle in criminal law that if the inculpatory facts are
capable of two or more explanations, one consistent
with the innocence of the accused and the other with his
guilt, the Court should adopt that which is more
favorable to the accused for then the evidence does not
fulfill the test of moral certainty.
There being no conspiracy, the liability of the appellant
will revolve around his individual participation in the
event.

2.No injury was shown to be attributable to the

appellant. The only medical evidence that appears on
records is the deceased Piamonte’s death certificate, which
indicates that the cause of death is massive hypovolemia
secondary to multiple stab wounds. The factual findings of
the RTC and the Court of Appeals coincide to show that the
cause of death of Piamonte is multiple stab wounds. Nothing
has been shown otherwise. Other than the presence of
multiple stab wounds, no other type of injury on the
deceased was established. No contusions or injury on the
head of the victim or anywhere else in his body caused by a
lead pipe was shown. The witness Garcia, in his testimony,
merely pointed to stab wounds on the different parts of the
body of the deceased. No proof on the injury that was
sustained by the deceased that can be attributable to
appellant’s act was demonstrated. No other physical
evidence was proffered.
In the case at bar, no motive on the part of appellant to
kill Piamonte was shown either prior or subsequent to
the incident. Nor can such intent to kill be inferred from
his acts. It bears reiterating that no injury on the body of
the deceased was attributed to the appellant's act of
hitting the victim with a lead pipe. On the nature of the
 weapon used, the lead pipe was described by Garcia as
one and a half feet in length, and one and a half inches
in diameter.
Homicidal intent must be evidenced by the acts that, at
the time of their execution, are unmistakably calculated
to produce the death of the victim by adequate means.
We cannot infer intent to kill from the appellant’s act of
hitting Piamonte in the head with a lead pipe. In the first
place, wounds were not shown to have been inflicted
because of the act. Secondly, absent proof of
circumstances to show the intent to kill beyond
reasonable doubt, this Court cannot declare that the
same was attendant.

When the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without

causing any injury, and without causing dishonor, the
offense is Maltreatment under Article 266,98 par. 3 of the
Revised Penal Code. It was beyond reasonable doubt
that by hitting Piamonte, appellant ill-treated the latter,
without causing any injury. As we have earlier stated, no
proof of injury was offered. Maltreatment is necessarily
included in Murder, which is the offense charged in the
Information. Thus:

ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. –

The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished.
By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not
exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat
another by deed without causing any injury.

The duration of the penalty of arresto menor in its

minimum period is 1 day to 10 days.

Fallo WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals,

dated 21 November 2005, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00408 is
MODIFIED. Appellant Bernard Mapalo is ACQUITTED of the
charge of MURDER for lack of evidence beyond reasonable
doubt. He is found GUILTY of the crime of
MALTREATMENT, as defined and punished by Article 266,
par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. He is accordingly
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
arresto menor of 10 days. Considering that appellant has
been incarcerated since 2004, which is well-beyond the
period of the penalty herein imposed, the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons is ordered to cause appellant's
IMMEDIATE RELEASE, unless appellant is being lawfully
held for another cause, and to inform this Court, within five
(5) days from receipt of this Decision, of the compliance
therewith.