Criminal Law Review

GR No. 182918
People v. Nimuan Date: June 6, 2011
Ponente: BRION, J

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, FREN PATELAN LAMBERTE @ "KALBO" and

MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN @ "CELINE,"
Accused,
MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN, Appellant.

DOCTRINE:
Intoxication; The mitigating circumstance of intoxication cannot be appreciated in the appellant’s
favor merely on the testimony of a prosecution witness that he was drunk during the incident. —
such testimony does not warrant a conclusion that the degree of the accused’s intoxication had
affected his faculties
FACTS
One evening, Eulalia Garcia was at her store when the appellant and Lamberte came to
borrow her gas lamp, she notices that both were drunk and armed, they said that they were
looking for a bullet, when asked, they told her that “we are going to kill the doctor”. While
waiting under a mango teethe victim, on board a truck passed by the store, the appellant
and Lamberte followed on foot, then Garcia heard 2 gunshots 10 minutes later from the
direction where the doctor was headed.
It appears that the victim was at his poultry farm to deliver medicines and bread to his
workers, leaving him after giving them and instructions, the workers heard gunfire from the
victim’s direction. On hearing a 2nd gunshot, Manolong ran towards its direction, seeing
the victim with a gunshot wound in his stomach, called for help, Yaranon and Anasario ran
towards them where a fight ensued among the accused and the workers, where the
accused had the upper hand, a shotgun was poked at Anasario and was threatened them
with harm should they tell on them, they left after that. Appellant denied any participation
and it was Lamberte who is solely responsible as he was only made to accompany him and
was under threat if he did not escape with him.
RTC found appellant guilty of murder giving credence to the positive testimony of the
prosecution who saw him, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of treachery,
evident premeditation and nighttime.
On appeal, the CA agreed with the RTC’s appreciation of the adduced evidence but
disregarded nighttime as it is absorbed in treachery. The CA likewise appreciated the
mitigating circumstance of intoxication because Garcia testified that the accused were
drunk, offsetting evident premeditation.
ISSUE/S
Did the CA correctly appreciate the circumstance of intoxication in the case?
RATIO
No. the CA erred in crediting the appellant with the mitigating circumstance of intoxication simply
because Garcia testified that “the accused were both drunk.” For intoxication to be considered as
a mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that the intoxication impaired the willpower of the
accused that he did not know what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his
acts.
In this case, there is no convincing proof of the nature and effect of the appellant’s intoxication.
The mitigating circumstance of intoxication cannot be appreciated in the appellant’s favor merely
on the testimony of a prosecution witness that he was drunk during the incident. Such testimony
does not warrant a conclusion that the degree of the accused’s intoxication had affected his
faculties.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the November 23, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 02352 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Marcelino Ruiz Nimuan is
found guilty of murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Dr.
Jose Villanueva ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, ₱56,150.00 as actual damages,
₱50,000.00 as moral damages, ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱622,453.95 as
indemnification for loss of earning capacity
NG