Case Digest (G.R. No. 66645)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Ruben Bacho @ Ruben Padolla, Raymundo Horca @ Mundo, Eduardo Paragato @ Daydo, and Rogelio Muncada @ Ngola, G.R. No. 66645, March 29, 1989, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.The four defendants were charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of Northern Samar (Crim. Case No. 1381) for an attack on Felipe Openiano, Jr. on April 16, 1981. At arraignment Bacho, Horca and Paragato pleaded not guilty; Muncada, a deaf-mute found mentally ill, had his arraignment deferred. Muncada later died in the provincial jail and the case against him was dismissed. Prior to trial Horca and Bacho offered to plead guilty to homicide but the trial court denied the offer.
After trial Judge Andres Santos found three accused guilty of murder with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength and sentenced each to death; the dispositive portion of that judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court because of the capital penalty. Following commutation of the death penalty under Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution, the accused were asked whether they would proceed by appeal; Bacho and Paragato elected to continue, while Horca died before completion of the appeal.
Prosecution witnesses Melchor Mora and Nicolas Ubaldo testified they saw a group of about five persons — later identified as the accused and another at large — ganging up on the victim; Mora testified Bacho stabbed the deceased in the back and that the victim fell and died en route to the hospital. The autopsy showed three stab wounds (two at the front, one at the back) and multiple abrasions. The accused denied culpability: Bacho asserted he himself was attacked and stabbed and fled to the hospital; Paragato claimed he was asleep at the back of the Pepsi Cola bodega and only learned of the incident the next day.
On appeal counsel de oficio (and the Solicitor General) argued that the trial court erred in finding a conspiracy and in treating the crime as murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and the law, affirmed conviction for murder but held treachery was not proven, sustained abuse of superior strength as a qu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was there sufficient proof of a conspiracy/common design among the accused to establish criminal liability as principals?
- Was treachery (alevosia) established as a qualifying circumstance of the offense?
- Was abuse of superior strength established as a qualifying circumstance?
- What is the appropriate penalty and civil indemnity in light of the proven circumst...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)