Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83096:57091&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:06:36+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 208719, June 09, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGER RINGOR UMAWID, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGER RINGOR UMAWID, Accused-Appellant.
That on or about the 26th day of November, 2002, in the municipality of San Manuel, province of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and hack with a long bolo (panabas) one Maureen Joy Ringor, a two year old baby girl, inflicting upon her body mortal wounds, which directly and instantaneously caused her death.
That on or about the 26th day of November, 2002, in the municipality of San Manuel, province of Isabela, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and hack for several times with a long bolo (Panabas) one, Jeffrey R. Mercado, inflicting upon him, incised wounds on the (R) and (L), hand and on the parietal area, which injuries would ordinarily cause the death of the said Jeffrey R. Mercado, thus, performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of Murder, as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it, by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to the said Jeffrey R. Mercado, which prevented his death.
In a Decision15 dated February 28, 2013, the CA affirmed Umawid’s conviction. It held that by invoking the defense of insanity, Umawid had, in effect, admitted the commission of the crimes but nevertheless pleaded to be exonerated from criminal liability. However, he failed to prove by clear and positive evidence that he was actually insane immediately preceding the time of the commission of the crimes or during their execution.
Umawid’s appeal is bereft of merit.
Where the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
In this case, Umawid solely relied on the testimonies of Dr. Quincina and Dr. Juliana to substantiate his plea of insanity. Records, however, reveal that Dr. Quincina’s testimony only showed that he evaluated Umawid’s mental condition in May 2002, February 2003, and March 2003.18 In other words, he only examined Umawid six (6) months before the latter committed the crimes and three (3) months and four (4) months thereafter. Notably, he admitted that his findings did not include Umawid’s mental disposition immediately before or at the very moment when he committed such crimes.19As such, Dr. Quincina’s testimony cannot prove Umawid’s insanity. Neither would Dr. Juliana’s testimony shore up Umawid’s cause as the former failed to attest to the latter’s mental condition and even referred him to another doctor for further evaluation. Given these circumstances, Umawid’s defense of insanity remained unsubstantiated and, hence, he was properly adjudged by the RTC and the CA as criminally liable.
With Umawid’s criminal liability having been established, the Court now proceeds to examine whether or not treachery was correctly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance for the crimes charged.
With these principles in mind, the Court agrees with the findings of the RTC and the CA that treachery was attendant in the killing of Maureen. The facts of this case show that Umawid suddenly appeared at the terrace of Vicente’s house and started attacking Vicente with panabas. However, the latter was able to evade Umawid’s attacks, resulting in Maureen being inadvertently hit and killed in the process. While it was not shown that Umawid consciously employed treachery so as to insure the death of Maureen, who was then just two (2) years old at the time, it is well to reiterate that the killing by an adult of a minor child is treacherous,24 and thus, qualifies Maureen’s killing to Murder.
As viewed from the foregoing, the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of appellant and his two companions rendered Michael defenseless, vulnerable and without means of escape. It appears that Michael was unarmed and alone at the time of the attack. Further, he was merely seventeen years of age then. In such a helpless situation, it was absolutely impossible for Michael to escape or to defend himself against the assault of appellant and his two companions. Being young and weak, Michael is certainly no match against adult persons like appellant and his two companions. Michael was also outnumbered since he had three assailants, and, was unarmed when he was stabbed to death. Appellant and his two companions took advantage of their size, number, and weapon in killing Michael. They also deliberately adopted means and methods in exacting the cruel death of Michael by first surrounding him, then grabbing his shoulders and overpowering him. Afterwards, each of them repeatedly stabbed Michael with a knife at the stomach until the latter fell lifeless to the ground. The stab wounds sustained by Michael proved to be fatal as they severely damaged the latter’s large intestine.
In this light, there is no reason not to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of treachery in an attack against a minor, as in this case.
All told, the Court hereby finds Umawid guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Murder in Criminal Case No. 23-0471 and Frustrated Murder in Criminal Case No. 23-0543, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated February 28, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05332is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of judgment, until fully paid.
1 Notice of Appeal dated March 13, 2013; rollo, pp. 15-16.
2 Id. at 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 17-30. Penned by Judge Bernabe B. Mendoza.
4 “Criminal Case No.Br. 23-0471” in some parts of the records.
5 Records (Criminal Case No.Br. 23-0471), pp. 1-2; records (Criminal Case No. 23-0543), pp. 1-2.
6 Records (Criminal Case No. Br. 23-0471), p. 1.
7 Records (Criminal Case No. 23-0543), p. 1.
9 See Transcript of Stenographic Notes, June 15, 2010, p. 11.
12 CA rollo, pp. 17-30.
14 See id. at 22-28.
16 See People v. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012, 686SCRA 267, 277.
17 See People v. Domingo, 599 Phil. 589, 606 (2009).
18 See rollo, pp. 6 and 10.
20 See Article 14(16) of the RPC.
21People v. Lacaden, G.R. No. 187682, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 784, 800.
22 See People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 461, 472-473.
23 See People v. Ganohon, 273 Phil. 672 (1991).
24 See People v. Domingo, supra note 16, at 610, citing People v. Cruz, 429 Phil. 511, 520 (2002).
25 See rollo, p. 13.
26People v. Garin, 476 Phil. 455, 476 (2004).
27 542 Phil. 152 (2007).
28 Id. at 171-172; citations omitted.
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
30 See People v. Malinao, 467 Phil. 432, 447 (2004).
(1) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
32 See People v. Macagaling, G.R. Nos. 109131-33, October 3, 1994, 237 SCRA 299.
33 G.R. No. 123144, October 15, 2003, 413 SCRA 385.
34 Id. at 392; citations omitted.
35People v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 535, 550, citing People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 181827, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 472, 485.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.