Art.
248-Murder Courts of Appeal
Art. 265-Less Serious Physical Injuries Affirmed the RTC judgment in full.
GR. No. 173793 | December 4, 2007 SUPREME COURT RULING
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs.
Conrado M. Glino, accused-appellant Yes, as the SC held in way of conspiracy. It matters not who among the accused actually killed
Nature of Case: the victim. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Each of the accused will be deemed
Appeal from the judgement of the Court of Appeals affirming the in toto the equally guilty of the crime committed. Also, proof that accused acted in concert, each of them
decision of the Regional Trial Court in Las Piñas City, Metro Manila, convicting doing his part to fulfill the common design to kill the victim will suffice to support a conviction,
accused-appellant Conrado Glino of murder and attempted murder for the senseless as further demonstrated in the case of People vs. Deuna. Thus, Glino was rightly convicted.
killing of Domingo Boji and the stabbing of his wife, Virginia Boji.
Conspiracy
Dispositive: The Supreme Court modified the decision of the CA and convicted the accused Even assuming, for the nonce, that it was Marvin Baloes who inflicted the fatal stab,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and Less Serious Physical Injuries. accused-appellant cannot escape culpability. Their obvious conspiracy is borne by the records.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
Facts commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct
In the evening of November 15, 1998 in Las Pinas City, complainant Virginia Boji evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of accused indicating a common understanding
and her husband Domingo Boji rode a PUJ wherein the accused Glino and Baloes among them with respect to the commission of the offense.
were also passengers. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an
The accused were intoxicated, with Glino leaning on Virginia violating her personal explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal
space. Domingo reminded Glino to sit properly but Glino and Baloes took offense objective is to be carried out. Proof that accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to
and made their retorts. Later, the accused were seen whispering together. fulfill the common design to kill the victim will suffice to support a conviction. In conspiracy,
When the accused announced their plan to alight from the PUJ, they suddenly and it matters not who among the accused actually killed the victim. The act of one is the act of all;
repeatedly stabbed Domingo. Virginia who was shocked initially was unable to hence, it is not necessary that all the participants deliver the fatal blow. Tersely put, each of the
come to Domingo’s succor as the first blow was struck; that as Domingo was about accused will be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.
to fall down from where he was seated, she embraced him; that she tried to shield The acts of accused-appellant Glino and Baloes before, during and after the killing of
him from further attacks; that when the assault ceased, her finger was gushing with Domingo are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiment. In
blood. her testimony before the trial court, Virginia categorically narrated that while Baloes was
The accused fled away but were then apprehended by two traffic enforcers. While stabbing Domingo, accused-appellant Glino was blocking her path, effectively preventing her
in custody, Baloes died of cardiopulmonary arrest, leaving Glino to contend with from rendering aid to her husband. Accused-appellant later joined Baloes in stabbing Domingo
the case. Glino denied the allegations against him, stating that he was merely one with a Batangas knife.
of the passengers in the PUJ and not a participant of the crime. It was alleged that
Baloes stabbed Domingo first and that Virginia was unable to identify her assailant. No Attempted Murder but Less Serious Physical Injuries
Still, the RTC and CA held Glino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and
attempted murder. Hence, this present appeal. We now proceed to calibrate accused-appellant's liability for the incised wounds
sustained by Virginia. Both the trial court and the appellate court found Glino liable for
In his supplemental brief, accused-appellant contends that the identity of the
attempted murder. The RTC and the CA are in agreement that there was intent to kill Virginia
assailant was not firmly established. The evidence, he argues, points to Baloes, who
as well.
died even before the trial began, as the perpetrator of Domingo's killing and
An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated,
Virginia's stabbing. In the alternative, accused-appellant submits that he is guilty of
frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately before or
homicide and attempted homicide only, not murder and attempted murder, due to
simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the
the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is
presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.
ISSUE/S of the CASE:
In the case under review, intent to kill Virginia is betrayed by the conduct of accused-
(a) Whether or not the accused (Mr. Glino) should be convicted of Murder even if
appellant and his co-assailant Baloes before, at the time of, and immediately after the
it was Baloes who initiated the action?
commission of the crime. If the assailants also intended to kill her, they could have easily
stabbed her in any vital part of her body. They did not. The nature and location of her wound
COURT RULINGS
militates against the finding of their intent to kill. According to the physician who examined her
Regional Trial Court
immediately after the incident, Virginia suffered from an incised wound measuring 2.5
Judgment is rendered finding accused Conrado M. Glino GUILTY beyond reasonable
centimeters by 0.2 centimeter in her fifth digit, right hand.
doubt of Murder and Attempted Murder.
Gleaned from the foregoing, it is crystal-clear that the wound on Virginia was inflicted
during her attempt to shield Domingo from accused-appellant's and Baloes' knife thrusts. It bears
stressing that Virginia embraced Domingo while the assault upon him was at its peak. Evidently,
the wound was inflicted while she was in that position.
Treachery
Accused-appellant next argues that he should be made liable for homicide only. He
claims treachery did not attend the killing of Domingo.
That treachery or alevosia was present is incontrovertible. The essence of this
qualifying circumstance is the sudden and unexpected attack by the assailant on an unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself.51 It is employed to ensure the
commission of the crime without the concomitant risk to the aggressor. The rule is well-settled
in this jurisdiction that treachery may still be appreciated even though the victim was forewarned
of danger to his person.52 What is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the
victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.53
Concededly, victim Domingo was caught unaware that an attack was forthcoming.
Although he had a verbal exchange with accused-appellant and Baloes, the assault was sudden,
swift and unexpected. All of the passengers inside the jeepney, including Domingo, thought all
along that the tension had ceased and that Glino and Baloes were about to alight. Domingo was
overpowered by accused-appellant Glino and Baloes, who took turns in stabbing the hapless
victim. By all indications, Domingo was without opportunity to evade the knife thrusts, defend
himself, or retaliate. In sum, the finding of treachery stands on solid legal footing.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is MODIFIED in that, in Criminal Case No.
98-1310, accused-appellant Conrado Glino is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Murder for the killing of Domingo Boji and is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua with its
accessory penalties. He is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amounts
of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P101,549.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral
damagesand P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. 98-1311, accused-appellant is likewise found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Less Serious Physical Injuries for wounding Virginia Boji and he is
sentenced to suffer the straight penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, and to pay the
victim the sums of P10,000.00 as moral damages and another P10,000.00 by way of exemplary
damages.
