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 accused- appellant’s condominium unit on September 23, 1993; that on September 24, 1993, accused-appellant’s 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, accusedappellant and Demetrio Ravelo collected the dismembered body parts of Elsa from the bathroom inside accused-appellant accused- appellant’s ’s bedroom; that accusedaccused appellant disposed of the body parts by a roadside somewhere in San Pedro, Laguna; that accused-appellant 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 accused-appellant’s ’s bathroom and bedroom showed similarities with hair taken from Elsa’s head; head; and that the bloodstains found on accusedaccused -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. 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 a t 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 N owhere 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 accusedappellant 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 s trewed 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.
