G.R. No. 128812. February 28, 2000 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THADEOS ENGUITO, defendant-appellant.

This case was for the pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure by the Court of Appeals which found accusedappellant Thadeos Enguito guilty beyond reasonable of the crime of murder with less serious physical injuries and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Facts: On September 22, 1991, Felipe Raquerme, a motorela driver, with his wife, Rosita Raquerme, picked up a passenger, Engr. Wilfredo Achumbre. While on their way, a white Ceres Kia car with plate number 722 violently hit and pushed the motorela until it turned around facing the direction from where it came from and fell on the right side. Rosita testified that the white vehicle went up the elevated catwalk and continued pursuing Achumbre who was hit when he was already at the railings. Then the white vehicle drove across the bridge towards Iligan City. Achumbre was brought to a hospital but was declared dead on arrival due to massive hemorrhage while the injured spouses were brought to the Operation Kahusay ug Kalinaw (OKK). Thadeos Enguito, the driver of the Kia car, was brought to the OKK by PO3 R. Catiil and 2 policemen. He admitted that he bumped someone at the Marcos Bridge. Georgita Achumbre, wife of the deceased filed a criminal complaint at the RTC, who found the defendant-appellant guilty of Homicide with less serious physical Injuries with the aggravating circumstance of the use of motor vehicle without any mitigating circumstance and sentenced him to inndeterminate sentence ranging from 12 years of prision correccional as minimum to TWENTY 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum penalty and accountable for civil liabilities. Issues: Whether or not the use aggravating circumstance of a motor vehicle considered as an

Whether or not the acting in passion and voluntary surrender allowed as mitigating circumstances Decisions:

Whether or not the use aggravating circumstance

of

motor

vehicle

considered

as

an

Article 14 of the RPC mentioned that considered as aggravating circumstances. Is -That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. The claim of the appellant that the vehicle was his only available means to stop the deceased from escaping was contradicted by his actions. By his own admission, he testified that there was a police mobile patrol near the crossing which he could have easily sought the assistance instead of taking the law into his own hands. Furthermore, accused-appellant already noticed the deceased trying to jump out of the motorela but he still did not stop the vehicle after hitting the deceased who was hit when Achumbre was at the railing of the Marcos Bridge. Whether or not the acting in passion and voluntary surrender allowed as mitigating circumstances The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be considered. Appellant himself testified that he stopped his vehicle just after the police mobile stopped. SPO3 Catiil further testified that appellant did not surrender but only stopped his vehicle when its right tire was already flat. His testimony was supported by PO3 Makiling testimonial that he saw the vehicle being driven by accused-appellant already destroyed and the right portion of the vehicle a little bit lower as it was running flat. The mitigating circumstance of acting in passion cannot also be considered. Accused-appellant claims that when he regained consciousness after he was mauled by the deceased, he wanted to look for a policeman to report the incident. Clearly, accused-appellant's state of mind after he was mauled and before he crushed Achumbre to death was such that he was still able to act reasonably. Another thing is that, he admitted having seen a police mobile patrol nearby but instead, he chose to resort to the dastardly act which resulted in the death of Achumbre and in the injuries of the spouses Requerme. Article 4 incurred: of the RPC states that Criminal liability shall be

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Even if it be assumed that the real intention of accused-appellant was to surrender the victim to the police for mauling him, his act of pursuing the victim, who was a passenger of the motorela, resulted in the injuries of the driver and the other passenger of the motorela. The decision convicting accused-appellant Thadeos Enguito of the complex crime of Murder with Less Serious Physical Injuries and sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of deceased Wilfredo Achumbre the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P1,680,000.00 for loss of earning capacity; P 16,300.00 as actual damages; P 50,000.00 as moral damages; and to further pay the spouses Felipe and Rosita Requerme the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages.