PEOPLE VS.

CARMINA, 193 SCRA 429

Facts:

On November 15, 1986 around 2 in the afternoon, the victim, Jose Billy Agotano, and his brother,
Victoriano Agotano, were on their way home from their farm when they were intercepted at gunpoint
by the accuseds, Valero & Israel, together with Ernita CArmina, and Aileen
Masanguid.

The grouped accused Billy of being pulahan because of the red t-shirt
he had wrapped around his head to cover it from the rain. The
Carminas,together with Agotanos, which they held as captives, visited
3 houses until they reached the house of Ramon Katiad wherein they
had their dinner. At about 10pm Israel told Billy that he will kill
him. The former took the latter with him downstairs while Valero
detained Victoriano in the house, pointing his rifle at him. In the
yard, Israel pushed Billy from behind and then shot him in the nape.
Unsatisfied, Israel dismembered the lifeless body of Billy, pulled
out the liver & lungs while declaring that it will be used as
pulutan, and the intestine which he hung around Victoriano while
telling the latter to use it as his necklace.
Issue:
1. WON the accused-appellant the RTC erred in concluding that there was a conspiracy on the crime
committed by the accuseds.
2. WON the crime constitutes treachery
3. WON the accused should be charged with a crime of murder.
4. WON there the RTC erred in adding ignominy to the offense.
5. WON the fact that Valero yielded constitutes voluntary surrender.

Ruling:
1. Yes. The
two of them acted in concert in the conception and execution
of the killing. The decision to kill Billy was reached by the two of
them although it was Israel who personally implemented it. While
Israel did his part in the killing yard, Valero detained Victoriano
in the house at gun-point and watched the shooting and dismemberment
of Billy. As a father, Valero made no move to restrain his son; on
the contrary, he watched with approval as Israel carried out their
joint decision.

2. Yes. The crime was qualified with treachery because, although the
victim was forewarned of his impending death, he was shot in the back
while he was entirely defenseless and the killers were under no risk
whatsoever from any retaliation the victim might make.

3. Yes. Even if treachery were not present in this case, the crime
would still be murder because of the dismemberment of the dead body.
One of the qualifying circumstances of murder under Article 248, par.
6, of the Revised Penal Code is “outraging or scoffing at (the)
person or corpse” of the victim.

4. YES. it was incorrect to appreciate adding ignominy to the offense

because the victim was already dead when his body was dismembered.
This aggravating circumstance requires that the offense be committed
in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating to the
victim, that is, add to his moral suffering.

5. Yes.the fact that Valero yielded when he was apprehended did not
operate to mitigate the penalty because mere non-resistance to arrest
is not considered voluntary surrender.