View full case

PEOPLE v. ORLANDO M. GUERRERO

FACTS:

The case involves the accused, Orlando Guerrero, Jr. and his father, Orlando Guerrero, Sr., who were both accused of the murder of Ernesto Ocampo. The accused pleaded not guilty, with the appellant invoking self-defense, while his father denied any involvement in the killing. The prosecution presented several witnesses, including Dr. Eumelia T. Sanglay, the municipal health officer, who performed the autopsy on Ernesto Ocampo's body. SPO2 Bienvenido Jacalne, a member of the PNP, testified that he responded to the incident and found the victim's body with the head separated and the penis severed. The police collected evidence at the crime scene, including a bladed weapon and a wooden club. Appellant Orlando Guerrero, Jr. confessed to the killing of the victim, stating that he clubbed him with a wooden stick and then cut off his head and penis with a knife. Nancy Ocampo, the widow of the victim, testified about her confrontation with Nora Guerrero and her family, who were asked to leave their employment due to allegations of an affair between Nora and Ernesto. Nancy pleaded with Dino Guerrero, Nora's father, to stop the relationship. Nancy saw appellant Orlando Guerrero, Jr. on the porch of the house during the conversation. Monico Guinitaran and Cirilo Garcia encountered appellant, who had bloodstains on his hands and shirt, and appellant said that they had killed somebody. According to witnesses, appellant was seen severing the head of Ernesto and striking his head with a club. The defense presented the appellant, who claimed self-defense, and his father, who testified that he was at the seashore during the time of the incident. Later, Dino encountered the appellant covered in bloodstains, who confessed to the killing and was advised by his father to surrender.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the appellant is guilty of the crime of murder.

  2. Whether or not the co-accused, Dino Guerrero, Sr., is guilty as an accessory to the crime.

  3. Did the trial court err in ruling against appellant's claim of self-defense?

  4. Did it also err in appreciating the circumstance of cruelty and scoffing at or outraging the victim's corpse?

  5. Did it err further in imposing on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua with actual and moral damages?

  6. Did the appellant sufficiently prove self-defense?

  7. Did the court err in holding the appellant guilty of murder instead of homicide?

  8. Whether or not there was evident premeditation in the commission of the crime.

  9. Whether or not the act of cutting-off the victim's penis constitutes the qualifying circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse.

  10. Whether or not the accused should be convicted of murder.

RULING:

  1. The appellant is found guilty of the crime of murder. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's act of repeatedly striking the victim, causing his death, and subsequently mutilating the victim's body clearly establishes his intent to kill and his treachery in the commission of the crime. The Court also rejected the appellant's defense of denial and alibi, as the prosecution presented credible witnesses who positively identified him as the perpetrator of the crime.

  2. The co-accused, Dino Guerrero, Sr., is acquitted. The Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that Dino Guerrero, Sr. participated in the commission of the crime or had knowledge of the appellant's intention to kill the victim. The Court gave weight to Dino Guerrero, Sr.'s testimony that he only learned about the appellant's involvement after the fact and immediately advised him to surrender to mitigate his liability.

  3. After a careful review of the records, including the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, the court finds appellant liable for the victim's death. The court agrees with the OSG that appellant failed to prove his claim of self-defense. Therefore, the trial court did not err in ruling against appellant's claim of self-defense.

  4. Appellant failed to prove self-defense. The court found that there was no more unlawful aggression to speak of at the moment of killing, and therefore, there can be no self-defense. The court also pointed out that the location, number, and seriousness of the wounds inflicted on the victim contradicted appellant's claim of self-defense.

  5. The court found no error in holding appellant guilty of murder instead of homicide. The court agreed with the trial court's finding that the evidence did not establish the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation required for murder.

  6. The court ruled that there was no evident premeditation in the commission of the crime. The alleged utterances of the appellant and his co-accused regarding their intent to kill the victim were insufficient to prove a determination to kill and a planned and meditated course of action. The appellant's actions prior to the incident did not indicate any preparation or possession of a weapon, and the heated argument with the victim demonstrated that the attack was made in the heat of anger.

  7. The court ruled that the act of cutting-off the victim's penis constitutes the qualifying circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse. Although not explicitly alleged in the information, the sequence of events as stated in the information indicated the outrage committed on the dead. Therefore, the appellant was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

  8. The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A person who commits the crime of murder is guilty when he unlawfully kills a person with treachery and intent to kill.

  • Denial and alibi, when not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses.

  • Accessory liability requires proof that the accused had knowledge of the commission of the crime and participated in it either as an accomplice or after its commission.

  • The accused has the burden of proving self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.

  • Self-defense ceases when the aggression has already ceased and there is no longer any danger to the person defending themselves.

  • Acts committed after the aggression has already ceased cannot be considered as self-defense, but rather, as acts of revenge.

  • The trial court has the discretion to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of cruelty and scoffing at or outraging the victim's corpse if the evidence supports it.

  • The burden of evidence is imposed on the party invoking self-defense. (People vs. Enfectana)

  • Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the appreciation of self-defense. (People vs. Enfectana)

  • Treachery is present when the means, methods, or forms used by the offender tend directly and especially to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself from the defense of the offended party. (Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code)

  • Evident premeditation requires proof of the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that the culprit clung to their determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution. (Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code)

  • Evident premeditation requires the concurrence of three elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination, and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow reflection and conscience to overcome the resolution of the will.

  • A threat to kill, unsupported by other evidence showing the true criminal state of mind of the accused, is only considered as a casual remark and not a product of evident premeditation.

  • There is no evident premeditation when the attack was made in the heat of anger.

  • Cruelty in the commission of a crime requires deliberately and sadistically augmenting the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering.

  • Outraging or scoffing at the corpse is a qualifying circumstance in murder cases and can be deduced from the recital in the information if it points to an outrage committed on the dead.

  • Conviction for murder requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime with the qualifying circumstances.

  • In murder cases, absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance should not be counted against the imposition of the death penalty. Instead, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

  • The accused should be ordered to pay the heirs of the victim actual damages, civil indemnity, and moral damages.