View full case

PEOPLE v. FLORENCIO AGACER

FACTS:

The case involves appellants who filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's decision affirming their conviction for the murder of Cesario Agacer. The court modified the decision by deleting the actual damages, ordering the appellants to pay the heirs of Cesario Agacer P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and ordering the appellants to pay interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum on all amounts of damages awarded. The appellants argued that their mere presence at the scene of the crime is not evidence of conspiracy, there was no treachery, and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should have been appreciated in favor of appellant Franklin Agacer who was only 16 years old at the time of the incident. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agreed that Franklin should be given the mitigating circumstance of minority. The court ruled that the rehashed arguments in the motion do not need new judicial determination. It also agreed that Franklin is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of minority and modified the penalty imposed on him. The court also declared the criminal and civil liability of appellant Florencio Agacer as extinguished due to his death prior to final judgment. The court granted the motion for reconsideration partially, modifying the decision in accordance with the ruling.

ISSUES:

  1. Was the evidence sufficient to establish the existence of conspiracy and treachery in the commission of the crime charged?

  2. Should the mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated in favor of appellant Franklin?

  3. Does the death of appellant Florencio extinguish his criminal and civil liabilities?

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the contention of appellants regarding the insufficiency of evidence to prove conspiracy and treachery is a mere rehash of their previous argument, which has already been considered and resolved. Thus, there is no necessity to discuss and rule again on this ground.

  2. The Court recognized that appellant Franklin is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. Despite the fact that his minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented, the Court ruled that Franklin's age presumption of acting with less discernment. Therefore, the penalty imposed on Franklin was modified accordingly.

  3. The Court declared that the death of appellant Florencio prior to final judgment extinguishes both his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto. It was further emphasized that upon the death of the accused pending appeal, the criminal action is extinguished along with the civil liability grounded on the criminal offense.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The reiteration of arguments in a motion for reconsideration does not require a new judicial determination.

  • The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority is applicable to an offender aged 15 to 18 years old.

  • The death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes both the criminal liability and the civil liability ex delicto.