View full case

PEOPLE v. RUSTICO TILOS

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Rustico Tilos was charged with murder for allegedly attacking Teotimo Narciso, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that Tilos struck Narciso from behind, causing him to collapse. Geralyn Narciso, the victim's daughter, confronted Tilos and told him that her father was already dead. Berto Rubio, another witness, pulled Tilos away from the victim. When asked why he attacked Narciso, Tilos allegedly said it was because the victim was causing trouble.

Tilos, on the other hand, claimed that he had pacified a fight between Narciso and two other individuals, Dodong Abordo and Litoy Romano. According to Tilos, Abordo poured cold water on him as a prank, which angered Narciso. Narciso then picked up a bamboo stick and accidentally struck Romano. Tilos intervened and told Narciso to go home, but he allegedly struck Narciso from behind, causing him to collapse. Tilos' wife, Florida Narciso, arrived and took him home.

The trial court found Tilos' testimony to be confusing and inconsistent. He gave conflicting statements regarding whether Romano was hit by Narciso and how Narciso obtained the bamboo stick. Tilos' defense witnesses also provided inconsistent testimonies. One witness initially supported Tilos' version but later recanted, claiming that he was coerced into signing a false affidavit.

SPO2 Nicolas Indico, the investigating officer, testified that Florida Narciso only mentioned accused-at-large Mateo Mahinay in her report and did not mention Tilos. However, the trial court deemed the reliance on the police blotter to be unconvincing, stating that they are often inaccurate and do not provide a complete account of events.

In conclusion, the prosecution's witnesses testified that Tilos attacked and killed Narciso. Tilos, on the other hand, claimed that he intervened in a fight between Narciso and two others. The trial court found the testimonies of Tilos and his defense witnesses to be inconsistent and unreliable.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the police blotter report can be relied upon as evidence of the incident.

  2. Whether the testimony of SPO2 Indico is credible.

  3. Whether there was conspiracy between the two accused.

  4. Whether the killing should be qualified as murder by the presence of abuse of superior strength.

  5. Whether a conspiracy between the two accused was duly proven to merit accused-appellant's conviction for murder.

  6. Whether the crime was committed with the attendance of abuse of superior strength, disregard of respect due to age, and treachery.

  7. Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of slight physical injuries.

RULING:

  1. The court held that the police blotter report cannot be relied upon as it is often inaccurate and does not reflect the entire account of what transpired.

  2. The court found the testimony of SPO2 Indico not credible due to his failure to respond to the report and his alleged favoritism towards one of the accused.

  3. The court found that there was conspiracy between the accused based on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.

  4. The court ruled that the killing should be qualified as murder by the presence of abuse of superior strength.

  5. The court finds that the trial court's finding of conspiracy between the two accused is not clearly borne out by the evidence. The inconsistency in the sequence of events, as well as the lack of a clear unity of purpose between the accused, raises doubts on the existence of conspiracy. Thus, the accused-appellant cannot be convicted based on conspiracy.

  6. The court affirms the trial court's finding that the crime was committed with the attendance of abuse of superior strength, disregard of respect due to age, and treachery. The victim, being sickly and debilitated, was defenseless against the accused, who had a marked difference in physical strength. The fact that the accused came from behind the victim to attack him and the presence of a treacherous attack indicate the aggravating circumstances.

  7. Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty of slight physical injuries. The court held that where conspiracy to murder is not proved, and the gravity or duration of the physical injury resulting from the fistblows by the accused on the victim was not established by the evidence, the accused is presumed, and is held, liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Police blotters are not always accurate and do not reflect the entire account of the incident.

  • Testimonial credibility is an important factor in evaluating the evidence.

  • Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.

  • The presence of abuse of superior strength can qualify a killing as murder.

  • Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and perform overt acts to commit it. It may be proven by direct evidence or deduced from the manner in which the offense was committed.

  • Conspiracy requires the establishment of community of criminal intent and the performance of overt acts. Each co-conspirator is held responsible for the acts of all the conspirators which proceeded from the same criminal intent.

  • Joint or simultaneous action is not per se sufficient evidence of conspiracy unless it is proved to have been motivated by a common design.

  • An accomplice is one who, not being a principal, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Conviction as an accomplice requires the accused to be aware of the criminal intent of the principal and knowingly or intentionally cooperate with him.

  • In order to establish criminal liability for a crime, it is necessary to prove the presence of the actus reus and mens rea of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the accused, provided there is a common purpose and design to commit the offense.

  • The attendance of aggravating circumstances, such as abuse of superior strength and disregard of respect due to age, can affect the penalty to be imposed on the accused.

  • The absence of treachery can be proven when there is no evidence of a sudden and unexpected attack that ensured the victim's inability to defend himself.