View full case

PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO CARANDANG

FACTS:

On April 5, 2001, the drug enforcement unit of La Loma Police Station received information about a drug deal involving accused Milan. SPO2 Red and his team went to Milan's house to investigate. Milan shut the door when the officers identified themselves, leading to a confrontation. Gunshots were fired by Milan, Chua, and Carandang, resulting in the deaths of PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red. SPO1 Montecalvo was also shot and managed to fire his gun, hitting Milan.

On April 4, 2001, SPO1 Montecalvo and SPO1 Estores, police officers, received information about an illegal drug operation in a house. They went to the house and introduced themselves but were met with refusal from Carandang to search the premises. Milan then attacked SPO1 Montecalvo, who was able to fire his gun and hit Milan. Reinforcements arrived and Carandang and Milan were brought to hospitals. Negotiations for their surrender took place, and they finally surrendered at midnight. The bodies of SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were found dead inside the house. SPO1 Montecalvo underwent surgery and incurred hospitalization expenses. The accused testified at trial.

The accused were found guilty of frustrated murder by the trial court and sentenced to imprisonment, with indemnity to the victim. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision but ordered additional indemnity to the heirs of PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red and modified their prison term.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was conspiracy among the accused.

  2. Whether the crimes committed by the accused should be murder and frustrated murder instead of homicide and frustrated homicide.

  3. Whether the appellants conspired with Carandang during the shooting incident.

  4. Whether the shouting of "sugurin mo na" by Chua to Milan constitutes a crime.

  5. Whether the rapid turn of events negates a finding of conspiracy.

  6. What is the proper penalty for the crimes committed?

  7. What are the civil liabilities of the appellants?

  8. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding the appellants liable for damages.

  9. Whether or not the award of damages and attorney's fees to the appellees is proper.

  10. Whether or not the imposition of interest on all damages awarded is justified.

RULING:

  1. The trial court held that there was conspiracy among the accused in the commission of the crimes charged. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, stating that the acts of Milan and Chua showed that they acted in concert with Carandang. Milan closed the door to facilitate the commission of the crime, while Chua ordered Milan to attack the police officers. Thus, the three accused were held equally criminally responsible for the crimes committed.

  2. The trial court convicted the accused of murder and frustrated murder, while Milan and Chua argue that they should only be convicted of homicide and frustrated homicide. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction for murder and frustrated murder. They explained that Milan's act of closing the door facilitated the sudden attack on the police officers, resulting in their instant death. Chua, on the other hand, lent encouragement and moral ascendancy to his co-conspirators, ordering Milan to attack the fallen police officers. Based on these acts, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven, thus warranting the conviction for murder and frustrated murder.

  3. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy between the appellants and Carandang. The acts of the appellants before and after the shooting, such as Milan closing the door to allow Carandang to wait in ambush and Chua directing Milan to attack one of the victims, demonstrated their unity of purpose and objective. Conspiracy may be proven by concerted action before, during, and after the commission of the crime, and in this case, such evidence was present.

  4. The Court held that the shouting of "sugurin mo na" by Chua to Milan constituted a crime. It is not necessary for the phrase to have inherent inducement or temptation. The fact that it was uttered in the context of the ongoing shooting incident, and the positive testimony of a witness, SPO1 Estores, outweighed the plain denials of the appellants.

  5. The rapid turn of events does not negate a finding of conspiracy. Unlike evident premeditation, conspiracy does not require a sufficient period of time for meditation and reflection. It arises on the very moment the plotters agree to commit the felony. Thus, the swift occurrence of the incident does not diminish the existence of conspiracy.

  6. The court sentenced the appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062. Since there was no other modifying circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua. In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, the penalty for the frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal. The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should be within the range of prision mayor, while the maximum term should be within the range of reclusion temporal.

  7. The civil liabilities of the appellants were modified. The award for civil indemnity was increased to P75,000.00 for each victim. Appellants are also solidarily liable to each victim for P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The appellants are held solidarily liable for moral damages to SPO1 Wilfredo Montecalvo, which was increased to P40,000.00. An award of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages is also warranted.

  8. The Court of Appeals did not err in finding the appellants liable for damages.

  9. The award of damages and attorney's fees to the appellees is proper.

  10. The imposition of interest on all damages awarded is justified.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony.

  • Acts that facilitate the commission of a crime can be considered as acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.

  • The qualifying circumstance of treachery is present when the offender employs means or methods that tend directly and especially to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender.

  • Conspiracy may be proven by other means aside from direct evidence of a preconceived plan or motive.

  • Proof of concerted action before, during, and after the crime is sufficient to establish conspiracy.

  • The act of one conspirator is the act of all, regardless of their degree of participation.

  • Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive when supported by the evidence on record.

  • Treachery exists when the attackers make it impossible for the victims to defend themselves.

  • The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death.

  • The penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal.

  • The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should be within the range of the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal, which is prision mayor.

  • Civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 are automatically awarded in cases of murder and homicide.

  • Exemplary damages are awarded when the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance, be it generic or qualifying.

  • The appellants are solidarily liable for the civil liabilities.

  • Liability for damages can be imposed upon a party if it is proven that they have caused injury or harm to another.

  • The award of damages and attorney's fees may be granted to the aggrieved party to compensate for the loss or injury suffered.

  • The legal rate of interest can be imposed to indemnify the injured party for the delay in the payment of damages.