People v. Mores G.R. No. 189846

 

GR 189846

June 26, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff -Appellee,

vs.

RAMIL MORES, Accused-Appellant.

Facts: 

Mores and was charged with complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder for the death of Ramy Balasa and injuries of fourteen people. During arraignment Mores and Famor pleaded not guilty. Only Famor was able to present evidence.

On January 24, 1994, Daryl was with his friends on Madugo Bridge at around 6 PM when Mores passed by and said, “Gusto niyo pasabugin ko ‘to?” while holding a grenade. After that, they dispersed and around 9 PM he went to the Roxas Gymnasium where a ball was being held. He saw Rey Raymundo on his right and he saw about five arms length, the appellant with Famor, on the same row and they were whispering to each other. He saw the appellant take the grenade in his left pocket then transferred it to his right hand before rolling the grenade on the floor. Estefan corroborates the testimony of Daryl.

Delfa was with Ramy Balasa, two meters from the table of Orpha. Orpha saw an object rolled in front of them and she peeped under the table and she kicked it and there was an explosion, commotion ensued. She felt her feet get hot and she asked the assistance of Ramy but Ramy suddenly fell down so she had to help him. Ramy was brought to Dr. Comia’s clinic and was then transferred to Roxas District Hospital where he died. They found out that there was a shrapnel embedded at the right anterior wall of his heart that led to hypovolemic shock and a massive loss of blood.

The Doctor of Roxas District Hospital said that there were only two doctors at the time and in estimate there were forty persons who were treated at the hospital for shrapnel injuries but they were not able to record every one due to the lack of time.

Famor claimed that he was at his house with his wife and 2 year old daughter sleeping when the event happened. His wife woke him up and told him that there was an explosion and they both left the house. At the shell station, he saw Rey Raymundo and asked what happened. His testimony was corroborated by his wife and by Rey Raymundo. Famor was acquitted due to the lack of evidence that proves that he was part of the unlawful act while the trial court found the Ramil Mores guilty of the felony of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder and was sentenced to a death penalty.

In view of the death penalty, the case was elevated to the CA for reexamination. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals, in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346 made some modifications to the ruling of the trial court changing the original penalty of death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Hence, Mores appealed to the Supreme Court.

The appellant made an appeal in the argument that the court erred in contending that the case contained treachery as a qualifying circumstance. He contends that he threw the grenade on the spur of the moment and was even in close proximity to the explosion disproving thoughts of self-preservation necessary for treachery. He also argues that the acquittal of Famor undermines the testimonies of the prosecution that claims that both he and Famor were present when the grenade throwing incident occurred.

Issue: 

Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present?

Ruling: 

Yes. Article 14, Paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code states that "there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." It is long settled in jurisprudence that two elements must concur in order to establish treachery: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed. Thus, the essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.

In this case, the manner by which appellant deliberately rolled the grenade on the ground towards the dance floor packed with unsuspecting revelers, leaving one dead and scores wounded in the aftermath of the sudden blast was accompanied with treachery. Appellant’s unexpected action which was immediately followed by the grenade’s lethal explosion left the victims with utterly no chance to escape the blast area nor to find protective cover. Though the appellant stood a short distance away, he knowingly positioned himself safely from the reach of the grenade’s destructive force. Thus, there is treachery in the commission of the crime.