View full case

PEOPLE v. ROMEO AGAPINAY

FACTS:

On April 13, 1981, Virgilio Paino was fatally stabbed in the municipality of Gonzaga, province of Cagayan. An Information was filed accusing the Agapinay brothers, Romeo, Alex, Fortunato, Dante, Delfin, and Cirilo, of murder. The prosecution presented evidence showing that the Agapinays, along with Virgilio and others, were hirelings of Julia Rapada. They went on a fishing venture on April 12, 1981 and returned the following day. A confrontation ensued between Romeo and Virgilio over the use of a shed, which led to Romeo stabbing Virgilio with a knife. Delfin, Fortunato, Dante, and Cirilo joined in stoning Virgilio. Amor Flores also stabbed Virgilio. Virgilio was later brought to the hospital but was dead on arrival. The Agapinays presented their defense claiming that Virgilio attacked them first, but the trial court rejected their claim and convicted all six accused of murder.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Romeo Agapinay stabbed the deceased twice.

  2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Delfin Agapinay, Alex Agapinay, and Fortunato Agapinay took turns in stoning the victim.

  3. Whether the trial court erred in adopting as part of the evidence the proceedings at the preliminary investigation conducted by the Municipal Circuit Trial Judge.

  4. Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was conspiracy on the part of the appellants when they committed the crime charged.

  5. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery.

  6. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellants to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

  7. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing the appellants to present evidence to find out if the evidence to be presented constitutes newly discovered evidence as a basis for a new trial.

  8. Whether the accused can be held liable as co-principals or simple accomplices for the murder of the victim.

  9. Whether treachery was present in the commission of the crime.

RULING:

  1. The court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modifications. The court held that only Romeo, Delfin, and Fortunato should be held as principals in the crime of murder. The court found that the errors raised by the accused primarily concern the credibility of witnesses, which is within the domain of the trial court. The court also held that conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and should therefore be considered individually. The court also ruled that Julia Rapada cannot be held liable as a principal by inducement as her words were mere imprudent utterances and not a command that had to be obeyed.

  2. The accused Romeo, Delfin, and Fortunato were held liable as co-principals for the murder of the victim, while Alex, Dante, and Cirilo were held liable as simple accomplices. The act of Romeo stabbing the victim was made possible by the assistance of Delfin and Fortunato in holding the victim. On the other hand, the act of pelting the victim with rocks by Alex, Dante, and Cirilo was not indispensable to holding them legally liable as principals since the victim had already sustained stab wounds.

  3. Treachery was not present in the commission of the crime. The attack on the victim was not sudden, and the manner in which the victim was attacked did not deprive him of all defenses. Instead, it was an abuse of superiority committed by the accused. Consequently, the trial court's ruling on the presence of treachery was overturned.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Credibility of witnesses is within the domain of the trial court.

  • Only acts committed with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that are the determining cause of the crime constitute principal by inducement.

  • Conspiracy requires an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and a decision to commit it.

  • Co-principals and simple accomplices can be held liable for the commission of a crime, depending on their degree of involvement and participation.

  • For treachery to be present, the attack must be sudden and the victim must be deprived of all defenses, while the offender faces no risk to himself.

  • Abuse of superiority can qualify the taking of another person's life into murder.

  • Defense of relatives requires the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means employed, and no part in provoking the assailant.

  • Offensive words or threats do not amount to unlawful aggression.

  • Self-defense does not justify the unnecessary killing of a retreating aggressor.

  • Provocation can be considered as a mitigating circumstance.