G.R. No.

123819 November 14, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT

FACTS: On November 19, 1993, accused-appellant was formally charged with

the murder of Elsa Santos-Castillo. During the trial the following circumstances
were successfully proven by the prosecution without a shadow of doubt, to wit:
that Elsa Santos Castillo was brought to accused-appellant’s condominium unit
on September 23, 1993; that on September 24, 1993, accused-appellant’s
housemaid was looking for her kitchen knife and accused-appellant gave it to
her, saying that it was in his bedroom; that on September 25, 1993, accused-
appellant and Demetrio Ravelo collected the dismembered body parts of Elsa
from the bathroom inside accused-appellant’s bedroom; that accused-
appellant disposed of the body parts by a roadside somewhere in San Pedro,
Laguna; that accused-appellant also disposed of Elsa’s personal belongings
along the road going to Bagac, Bataan; that the mutilated body parts of a
female cadaver, which was later identified as Elsa, were found by the police
and NBI agents at the spot where Demetrio pointed; that hair specimens found
inside accused-appellant’s bathroom and bedroom showed similarities with hair
taken from Elsa’s head; and that the bloodstains found on accused-appellant’s
bedspread, covers and in the trunk of his car, all matched Elsa’s blood type. On
January 31, 1996, the trial court promulgated the appealed judgment,
convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder, sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the
deceased actual damage, moral damages, exemplary damages and
attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court is correct in appreciating the crime to be
murder with qualifying circumstances of abuse of superior strength and
outraging and scoffing at the victim’s person or corpse?

HELD: Abuse of superiority is present whenever there is inequality of forces

between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of
strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken
advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. The fact that the victim
was a woman does not, by itself, establish that accused-appellant committed
the crime with abuse of superior strength. There ought to be enough proof of the
relative strength of the aggressor and the victim. Abuse of superior strength must
be shown and clearly established as the crime itself. In this case, nobody
witnessed the actual killing. Nowhere in Demetrio’s testimony, and it is not
indicated in any of the pieces of physical evidence, that accused-appellant
deliberately took advantage of his superior strength in overpowering Elsa. On
the contrary, this Court observed from viewing the photograph of accused-
appellant that he has a rather small frame. Hence, the attendance of the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not adequately
proved and cannot be appreciated against accused-appellant.

However, the other circumstance of outraging and scoffing at the corpse of the
victim was correctly appreciated by the trial court. The mere decapitation of
the victim’s head constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim,
thus qualifying the killing to murder. In this case, accused-appellant not only
beheaded Elsa, he further cut up her body like pieces of meat. Then, he strewed
the dismembered parts of her body in a deserted road in the countryside,
leaving them to rot on the ground. The sight of Elsa’s severed body parts on the
ground, vividly depicted in the photographs offered in evidence, is both
revolting and horrifying. At the same time, the viewer cannot help but feel utter
pity for the sub-human manner of disposing of her remains. In a case with
strikingly similar facts, the Court ruled that “Even if treachery was 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.”

WHEREFORE, the decision of the RTC finding accused-appellant guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of murder, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS on damages and civil
indemnity.