1/26/24, 8:08 PM G.R. No. 232390 - People v.

Antigua y Quila

Contact Search

Title
People v. Antigua y Quila

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 232390 CARANDANG, J : 2021-10-06

In a murder case, accused-appellant Ramil Antigua appeals the dismissal of his

appeal by the Court of Appeals, arguing that he was wrongly identified as one of
the assailants and that his alibi was weak, ultimately resulting in his conviction as
an accomplice in the murder of Mario Canaria.

Digest Summary Case Similar

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 232390. October 6, 2021.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMIL ANTIGUA y QUILA @ "ONOY",

accused-appellant.

DECISION

CARANDANG, J p:

Before Us is an appeal filed by accused-appellant Ramil Antigua y Quila (Ramil) to

reverse the Resolutions dated December 3, 2015 and October 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07084. The CA dismissed Ramil's appeal of the Judgment dated
August 7, 2014 and Resolution dated September 18, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
Criminal Case No. 03-1040 convicting him of murder. The dispositive portion of the August
7, 2014 Judgment of the RTC provides:

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/people-v-antigua-y-quila#_ 1/9
1/26/24, 8:08 PM G.R. No. 232390 - People v. Antigua y Quila

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution having been sic established the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds accused, RAMIL ANTIGUA,
GUILTY of the crime of MURDER, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

Likewise, the accused is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the following, to wit:

1. Moral damages P75,000.00

2. Civil Indemnity 75,000.00

3. Exemplary damages 30,000.00

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original)

Antecedents

Ramil, John Doe, and Peter Doe were charged with Murder under Article 248 of the
dated December 18, 2002 which states:

That on or about 11:30 in the evening of August 27, 2002 at Barangay Exciban, Labo,
Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously shoot, stab and hack with the use of firearm and bladed weapons one Mario
Canaria inside his own dwelling place, thereby causing his instantaneous death, to the
damage and prejudice of his heirs.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Ramil was arraigned on April 14, 2003 and pleaded not guilty.

Plaintiff-appellee presented Marvin Canaria (Marvin), Angel Canaria, Jr. (Angel), Ana
Marticio (Ana), and Dolores de Claro (Dolores) as its witnesses. The victim Mario Canaria
(Mario) is the father of Marvin and the brother of Angel, Ana, and Dolores. Marvin and Angel
testified that on August 27, 2002, at 11:30 p.m., Mario returned to his house at Barangay
(Brgy.) Exciban, Labo, Camarines Norte together with Angel, Alberto Gaton (Alberto), and his
second wife Lourdes Benitez from a drinking spree at Alberto's house. Mario and Alberto sat
together on a bench while Angel sat on another seat. Marvin was at the tinabaw, a place for
sleeping made of bamboo sticks located near the roof of the house. Mario was tuning a
guitar in preparation for serenading a certain Nena when three men arrived, one of which
was Ramil. When one of them pointed a gun at Alberto, Ramil said "hindi yan, yung isa." The
https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/people-v-antigua-y-quila#_ 2/9
1/26/24, 8:08 PM G.R. No. 232390 - People v. Antigua y Quila

one holding the gun then shot Mario. The men ordered Mario, Angel, and Alberto to lie down
facing the floor. The gas lamp in the house broke so one of the assailants took Alberto's
flashlight and its light illuminated Ramil. Mario was shot again. Before leaving, the three
men said that they should not follow them.

After five minutes, Angel stood up and saw that Mario was already dead. Marvin went
down from the tinabaw and also saw the dead body of his father. Mario had gunshot, hack,
and stab wounds. Angel and Alberto went to Ana's house to inform her that Mario has died.
Afterwards, they went to the nearest camp of the soldiers to report the incident; there, they
were advised to go to Brgy. Captain Cesar Lopez (Brgy. Captain Lopez). Brgy. Captain Lopez
instructed Brgy. Kagawads (Kgwd.) Victor Tenorio (Tenorio), Romulo Balmaceda
(Balmaceda), and Alfredo Alim (Alim) to accompany them. Angel, Alberto, Brgy. Kgwd.
Tenorio, Brgy. Kgwd. Balmaceda, and Brgy. Kgwd. Alim arrived at Mario's house at around
3:00 a.m. of August 28, 2002. Angel claimed that Ramil must have been motivated by the
fact that Mario testified against him in a case for illegal logging. Notably, Ramil was also
charged with the frustrated murder of Mario. Neither Angel nor Marvin told the barangay
officials that Ramil accompanied the persons who shot Mario. However, Ana claimed that
Marvin did disclose to the barangay officials that Ramil was the one who said "hindi yan,
yung isa." Brgy. Kgwd. Tenorio prepared a report on the incident.

Dr. Marcelito B. Abas conducted an autopsy on Mario's cadaver. He said that the cause
of death was "shock hemorrhagic due to multiple stab, hacking, and gunshot wounds
penetrating the lungs and the liver."

Dolores averred that she spent P200,000.00 for each of the three cases regarding her
brother, namely: (1) the instant case; (2) frustrated murder case against Ramil; and (3) illegal
possession of firearm. She also spent P2,500.00 for transportation expenses from Tondo,
Manila to Labo, Camarines Norte to attend court hearings, P400.00 for food for every court
hearing from 2002 to 2006, P5,000.00 for the acceptance fee of the private prosecutor, and
P1,500.00 for every court appearance of the private prosecutor from 2004 to 2006. Dolores
did not present receipts for her claim of actual damages.

For his defense, Ramil testified and also presented Brgy. Kgwd. Alim, Brgy. Kgwd.
Tenorio, and Flordeliza Padilla (Flordeliza) as his witnesses. Ramil knew Mario because he
previously resided in Brgy. Exciban. He decided to transfer to Brgy. Macogon, Labo,
Camarines Norte so that his five children could be closer to their school. His new residence
was more or less five meters away from his sister's house. Ramil claimed that on August 27,
2002, he had a drinking session with Seminiano Gerez, Armando Aguilar, Eddie Serdo, and
Henry Rustique. They began their drinking spree at about 4:00 p.m. They bought some of
their liquor from Flordeliza's store located 15 meters away from where Ramil would
https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/people-v-antigua-y-quila#_ 3/9
1/26/24, 8:08 PM G.R. No. 232390 - People v. Antigua y Quila

construct his house. At 10:00 p.m., Ramil slept at his sister's house. Flordeliza saw him
sleeping when she went to urinate at 1:00 a.m. of August 28, 2002. She also said that the
place where Ramil drank could be reached within 10 seconds from the boundary of Brgy.
Exciban and Brgy. Macogon. Ramil woke up at 6:00 a.m. on August 28, 2002 and started
constructing his house two hours later.

Brgy. Kgwd. Alim testified that he was summoned by Brgy. Captain Lopez to
accompany Angel and Alberto because Mario was killed. He also brought along Brgy. Kgwd.
Tenorio and Brgy. Balmaceda. When they arrived at Mario's house, they asked Angel and
Alberto if they recognized Mario's killer. They responded no because it was drizzling though
Marvin said that Mario's killer was wearing fatigue pants. Brgy. Kgwd. Alim, Brgy. Kgwd.
Tenorio, and Brgy. Kgwd. Balmaceda did not find any empty shell in Mario's house. Upon the
request of Mario's family, they placed his cadaver on the bench.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On August 1, 2014, the RTC found Ramil guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of murder and sentenced him to a penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay
the following amounts: (1) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (2) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
and (3) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The RTC held that the testimonies of plaintiff-
appellee's witnesses duly established that Ramil was the one who shouted "hindi yan, yung
isa" or "hindi yan, yung nasa likod" in reference to Mario. Angel recognized Ramil's voice
because they have been friends for two years while Marvin claimed that Ramil was his
cousin. Based on jurisprudence, the sound of the voice of a person is an acceptable means
of identification if it is established that the witness and the accused knew each other
personally and for a close number of years. Further, Ramil's face was also seen when the
light from Alberto's flashlight shone on it. Plaintiff-appellee's witnesses had no ill motive
against Ramil.

According to the RTC, Ramil's companions shot Mario. Aside from gunshot wounds,
Mario also suffered from stab and hacking wounds which resulted in his death. Ramil
conspired with the two unidentified men in hacking, stabbing, and shooting Mario. He
induced his companions by identifying Mario. Treachery was present because Ramil and
his co-conspirators suddenly entered Mario's house and shot him. They attacked Mario
deliberately and without warning in a swift and unexpected way that gave him no
opportunity to resist or defend himself.

The RTC did not give weight to Ramil's alibi because Brgy. Exciban and Brgy. Macogon
are close to each other. Alibi can only prosper if it is shown that it was physically impossible

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/people-v-antigua-y-quila#_ 4/9
1/26/24, 8:08 PM G.R. No. 232390 - People v. Antigua y Quila

for the accused to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission.

Ramil filed his motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC. Thereafter, he
appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On December 3, 2015, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing Ramil's appeal. This was
due to his failure to file his appellant's brief within the reglementary period and his
counsel's failure to inform the CA of his present and complete address despite being
required to do so. Ramil filed a Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration but on October 12,
2016, the CA resolved to deny it. The CA noted that in its Resolution dated May 11, 2015,
Ramil's counsel was directed to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for
failure to file the appellant's brief within the reglementary period. This was received at the
given address of Ramil's counsel on June 4, 2015 per the certification of the Postmaster.
Ramil only filed his motion for reconsideration on January 4, 2016 or seven months beyond
the expiration of the reglementary period that was counted from June 4, 2015. The excuse
given by Ramil's counsel of heavy workload did not justify his non-observance of the

After the CA denied his motion, Ramil appealed to this Court. Ramil filed a
Supplemental Brief while plaintiff-appellee manifested that there was no brief that it may
respond to because the CA did not admit Ramil's brief. In any case, there are no transactions
or events that occurred since the CA promulgated its December 3, 2015 Resolution.

Ramil argued that the RTC erred in ruling that he was duly identified as one of Mario's
assailants and that his alibi was weak. His motion to fix bail was notably granted by the RTC
and this was affirmed by the CA. Ramil pointed out that the judge who tried his case and had
the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witnesses was not the same judge who
rendered the judgment. He insisted that neither Angel nor Marvin was able to positively
identify him. In contrast, Brgy. Kgwd. Tenorio and Brgy. Kgwd. Alim clearly testified that
Angel and Marvin did not inform them that they saw Ramil. Plaintiff-appellee did not rebut
their testimony or explain why Angel and Marvin failed to give such relevant information
when they were asked who killed Mario. Ramil pointed out that Angel and Marvin could be
motivated by the frustrated murder case filed by Mario against him.

In addition, Ramil argues that it was not established that Angel and Marvin were
familiar with his voice. Since bad blood existed between them, it can be assumed that they
have not talked to each other for quite some time.

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/people-v-antigua-y-quila#_ 5/9
1/26/24, 8:08 PM G.R. No. 232390 - People v. Antigua y Quila

Moreover, Ramil claims that his mere utterance of "hindi yan, yung isa" is not enough
to establish that he conspired with the two unidentified men to kill Mario. The statement is
too vague to be construed as a command to kill Mario. Ramil argued that based on
jurisprudence, passive presence at the crime scene is insufficient to hold one liable for the
commission of a crime. Conspiracy must be real and presumptive and must be proven by
positive and convincing evidence. Similarly, treachery cannot be presumed and must be
proven conclusively as the act itself. Ramil pointed out plaintiff-appellee's admission that
the three assailants did not enter Mario's house. Plaintiff-appellee's witnesses were not even
able to see the manner of attack or actual killing of Mario. Accordingly, Ramil prayed for his
acquittal.

Issues

The issues to be resolved in this case are:

I. Whether the CA erred in dismissing Ramil's appeal; and

II. Whether Ramil is guilty of murder.

Ruling of the Court

We partially grant the appeal.

Ramil undoubtedly failed to file his appellant's brief on time. As such, the CA was
acting within its discretion in dismissing his appeal pursuant to Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the
Nonetheless, We shall determine the merits of Ramil's appeal considering that his personal
liberty is at stake. As We have held in , "procedural rules take a step back when it would
subvert or frustrate the attainment of justice, especially when the life and liberty of the
accused is at stake."

The crime of murder is penalized under Article 248 of the and (4) that the killing is not
parricide or infanticide. The RTC is correct that the elements of murder were proven in this
case. First, Mario was killed. Second, Mario's death was due to the gunshot and stab wounds
inflicted by Ramil's companions. Third, the killing was attended by treachery. Article 14 (16)
of the

The RTC is likewise correct that Ramil's presence during the incident was duly
proven. Both Marvin and Angel heard Ramil tell one of his companions "hindi yan, yung isa"
before Mario was shot. Marvin is familiar with Ramil's voice because the latter is his cousin.
To be more specific, his grandfather (on his mother's side) is the brother of Ramil's father.
Ramil's lot in Exciban was also beside the property of Marvin's family. As for Angel, he has

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/people-v-antigua-y-quila#_ 6/9
1/26/24, 8:08 PM G.R. No. 232390 - People v. Antigua y Quila

been friends with Ramil for two years. Angel lives in the same barangay as Ramil. The Court
has held that the sound of a person's voice is an acceptable means of identification where it
is established that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for a
number of years. In this case, Marvin and Angel were able to show that they were
sufficiently familiar with Ramil such that they could properly identify his voice.

In addition to hearing Ramil's voice, Marvin and Angel claimed that they saw him.
Marvin said in his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated September 3, 2002 that the light from the
flashlight and the moon illuminated Ramil. He also testified that he saw Ramil by peeping in
between the bamboo sticks of the tinabaw. A flashlight taken from Alberto by one of the
unidentified assailants shone on Ramil's face. Angel said during his testimony that he saw
Ramil's face illuminated by a flashlight when he lifted his head while lying face down on the
ground.

Nonetheless, Ramil should not be held liable as a principal of the crime of murder
against Mario but only as an accomplice. On one hand, Article 17 of the

The Court distinguished accomplices from conspirators in :

Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common: they know and agree with
the criminal design. Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention because they
themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it
after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in
its execution. Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed; accomplices merely
concur in it. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they
merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. Conspirators are the
authors of a crime; accomplices are merely their instruments who perform acts not
essential to the perpetration of the offense.

Based on the testimonies of Marvin and Angel, all Ramil did was identify Mario. There
is no proof that the other assailants would not have been able to carry out their attack on
Mario without Ramil's assistance. Further, Ramil did not direct his companions to shoot him
or attack Mario himself. There is likewise no evidence that Ramil previously entered into an
agreement with Mario's assailants to attack him. It is well settled that mere presence in the
crime scene is not sufficient proof of conspiracy. All told, Ramil undoubtedly participated in
the incident but his act of identifying Mario and standing by while his companions attacked
the latter are not indispensable to the murder of Mario. There being no proof that he
conspired with his companions, Ramil can only be held liable as an accomplice.

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/people-v-antigua-y-quila#_ 7/9
1/26/24, 8:08 PM G.R. No. 232390 - People v. Antigua y Quila

Pursuant to Article 52 of thereclusion perpetua to death. The penalty next lower in

degree is reclusion temporal. Since there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances,
the penalty should be in its medium period. Applying prision mayor while the maximum
period is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.

The Court held in that the following amounts must be paid to the heirs of the victim of
the crime of murder punishable by reclusion perpetua: (1) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2)
P75,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (4) P50,000.00 as
temperate damages. As an accomplice, Ramil is only liable for 1/5 of the amounts granted to
the heirs of Mario, to wit: (1) P15,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P15,000.00 as moral
damages; (3) P15,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (4) P10,000.00 as temperate damages.
To clarify, Ramil cannot be held subsidiarily liable for the amount allotted to the principal if
they die before the finality of this Decision because the principal's death would extinguish
their civil liability. The amounts awarded shall be subject to a legal interest of six percent
(6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until their full payment.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is partially GRANTED. The Resolutions dated December 3,

2015 and October 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07084 are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Ramil Antigua y Quila is found
GUILTY as an accomplice in murder and is sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of eight
(8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is also ORDERED to pay the
following to the heirs of the victim Mario Canaria: (1) P15,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2)
P15,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P15,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (4) P10,000.00 as
temperate damages. The total monetary award is subject to an interest of six percent (6%)
per annum from the finality of this Decision until its full satisfaction.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, Zalameda, Rosario and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.

END

Jurisprudence.ph
Philippine Jurisprudence and Laws
120,000+ records to search

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/people-v-antigua-y-quila#_ 8/9
1/26/24, 8:08 PM G.R. No. 232390 - People v. Antigua y Quila

Case Summary and Digest

Find Similar Cases
Download for offline use

Search Jurisprudence and Laws

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/people-v-antigua-y-quila#_ 9/9