Facts:
On January 30, 1997, in
G.R. No. 117689, the Court resolved an appeal by spouses
Eliseo Alvarez y Villalva and
Vilma Alvarez y Magada, with their son
Alberto Alvarez y Magada as an accused whose trial was suspended. The cases arose from an incident that occurred at around 4:00 p.m. on October 12, 1993, in Barangay Masaguisi, Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, involving
Benito Paez, who later died, and
Rosalinda Paez, who sustained serious injuries.
Eliseo and
Vilma were charged in the Regional Trial Court of Boac, Marinduque with
murder of Benito in Criminal Case No. 98-93, the information alleging that the accused, armed with boloes and an axe, conspired and mutually helped one another to attack Benito with treachery and with a deliberate intent to kill. A separate information for
frustrated homicide was filed against
Vilma in Criminal Case No. 21-94, based on her alleged stabbing of Rosalinda on the same occasion, with the allegation that all acts of execution had been performed but the intended homicide did not occur by reason of timely medical assistance. The RTC suspended the prosecution of Alberto in Criminal Case No. 98-93 after his commitment to the National Center for Mental Health for psychiatric examination. Trial of Eliseo and Vilma in both cases proceeded jointly. The prosecution evidence established that in the Paez hut, while Benito and Rosalinda were threshing palay, Eliseo arrived and hacked Benito on the shoulder, then demanded that the spouses pacify their dog after being irked by its barkings. When Benito’s back was turned, Eliseo hacked him from behind. As Benito fell, Vilma stabbed him on the chest with her bolo. Rosalinda attempted to carry Benito but was struck by Vilma; she parried with her palm and suffered disabling injuries to her fingers. Rosalinda fled and hid about twenty-five meters from the scene, but she later saw Alberto hit her husband on the head with an axe, followed by stabbing blows and a kick from Eliseo. After five minutes, Rosalinda sought treatment. When she returned, people told her Benito was already dead. Another prosecution witness,
Jimmy Ornos, corroborated the sequence: Eliseo hacked Benito at the back with a long bolo; Vilma stabbed Benito on the chest; and Alberto used an axe to strike Benito on the left shoulder, right forearm, and left face, after which Jimmy took the axe away. Eliseo denied participation in the treacherous assault as charged and asserted
self-defense, claiming that Benito and others challenged and attacked him, including an alleged blow using a tangal branch that broke into three pieces. He claimed that after Benito struck him and was about to strike again, he hacked Benito on the back, and when Benito fell, he followed up by hitting the throat with the blunt side of the bolo. He also denied that Vilma and Alberto participated in hacking Benito and Rosalinda, and he claimed that Vilma was assaulted by others first. Vilma, for her part, testified that she was weeding at the time and that she saw Rosalinda attack Eliseo; she claimed Rosalinda hacked her, injuring her right sole and knee, and that she did not file any complaint afterward. The RTC convicted Eliseo and Vilma in Criminal Case No. 98-93 of
murder, appreciating
treachery and confederation, and imposed
reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnity to the heirs for death indemnity. In Criminal Case No. 21-94, the RTC ruled that the act did not constitute frustrated homicide because the injury sustained by Rosalinda was not fatal and reduced the charge to
attempted homicide under
Article 249 in relation to
Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing Vilma to an indeterminate prison term and granting credit for preventive imprisonment; it also declined to pronounce civil liability because damages were not adequately proven.
Issues:
Whether the RTC erred in convicting appellants of
murder and
attempted homicide by rejecting their claim of
self-defense and by appreciating
treachery.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: