People of the Philippines v Edgardo Malolot

GR No. 174063 March 14, 2008

Facts:

Three informations Criminal Case Nos. 98-627, for attempted murder; 98-628, for frustrated
murder; and 98-629, for murder were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis
Oriental against herein brother-appellants Edgardo Malolot (Edgardo) and Elmer Malolot
(Elmer). The victims in the cases are siblings and minors all.

The three informations were summarized hereunder:

On case no. 98-627, the accused were alleged to have conspire and with intent to kill, attack
and hack with bolos one Jovelyn Mabelin, 7 years old thereby inflicting wound but did not
perform all the acts of execution for murder because they thought the victim was already dead.

On case no. 98-628, the accused were alleged to have conspire and with intent to kill, attack
and hack with bolos Junbert Mabelin, 4 years old inflicting multiple mortal wounds and had
performed all the acts of execution but the victim survived because of prompt medical
attention.

On case no. 98-629, the accused were alleged to have conspire and with intent to kill, attack
and hack with bolos Jonathan Mabelin, 11 months old inflicting multiple mortal wounds which
caused his death.

All three informations alleged aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult or in disregard
of the respect due to the victim on account of age.

The three cases were tried jointly and the RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of all the crimes charged.

The CA affirmed the RTC.

Issue:

1. Whether the accused has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the accused are guilty of attempted homicide, frustrated homicide and homicide
only.
3. Whether treachery was employed in the commission of the crime.

Ruling:

Yes. The accused has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC and CA correctly
held that the facts and evidence of the case support the findings of conviction.
There is no convincing proof that the accused did not commit the crime of attempted murder,
frustrated murder and murder and not attempted homicide, frustrated homicide and homicide,
respectively for facts and evidence presented negates such posit of the accused, hence, the
conviction made by the court aquo is proper.

There was treachery attended the crime.

When an adult illegally attacks a child, treachery exists even if the mode of attack is not proved
by the prosecution because a child of tender years could not be expected to put up a defense,
hence, is at the mercy of the assailant.[49] That the victims of the Attempted Murder,
Frustrated Murder and Murder Jovelyn, Junbert and Jonathan, respectively were minors at the
time of the incident has been proven.[50]

The allegation in each of the three informations of disregard of the age of the victim cannot,
however, be appreciated as an additional aggravating circumstance in the commission of the
crimes as the same is absorbed in the qualifying circumstance of treachery.[51] That leaves
dwelling in the frustrated murder of Junbert and the murder of Jonathan as the aggravating
circumstance in the commission thereof.