Case Digest (G.R. No. 143817)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 143817)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Alejandro Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The appellant, Alejandro Bajar, was charged with and convicted for the murder of his father‑in‑law, Aquilio Tiwanak, by the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. 99‑942; the trial court rendered its decision on 17 July 2000 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to death. The information (as amended) alleged that on 16 August 1999 at about 8:00 p.m. in Sitio Mohon, Barangay Mambayaan, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, appellant, armed with a bolo and with intent to kill, attacked and stabbed the 85‑year‑old victim with evident premeditation and treachery, and that dwelling, superior strength, disregard of respect due the victim on account of his age, habitual intoxication and relationship were attendant aggravating circumstances.
At arraignment on 8 February 2000 appellant pleaded not guilty and a trial followed. The prosecution presented as principal witnesses appellant’s wife, Lolita Bajar, and their daughters Ana Bajar Rabor and Alma Luna Bajar. Their testimony described how Ana, visiting her parents that day, slept in her grandfather’s (the victim’s) house and, through gaps in a bamboo partition, saw appellant—drunk—force entry through a kitchen door carrying a bolo and hack the sleeping victim; Ana and Alma testified that they and Lolita attempted to stop the attack and that Lolita struck appellant on the head with a piece of wood, after which the victim lapsed and died. The municipal health officer, Dr. Angelita Enopia, testified on post‑mortem findings showing three major wounds consistent with a sharp instrument.
Appellant testified as sole defense witness, claiming instead that the victim unexpectedly clubbed him first, causing head wounds and loss of consciousness, and that he drew a hunting knife in self‑defense and only struck the victim while repelling attack. The trial court disbelieved appellant’s self‑defense claim as uncorroborated and credited the testimonies of his wife and daughters; it found treachery as qualifying circumstance and several aggravating circumstances, imposed death, ordered civil indemnity, exemplary and burial expenses, and the case was brought to the Supreme Court on automatic review under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
In his brief to this Court appellant renewed his claim of self‑defense and attacked the sufficiency of proof of treachery and some aggravating circumstances (notably habitual intoxication and disregard of age); the Office of the Solicitor General urged affirmance. The Supreme Court affirmed conviction but modified the damages awards.
Issues:
- Whether the conviction should be affirmed on automatic review.
- Whether appellant proved the elements of self‑defense to warrant acquittal.
- Whether treachery was sufficiently alleged in the information and proved as a qualifying circumstance.
- Whether the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, relationship, disregard for the victim’s age, and habitual intoxication were properly appreciated.
- Whether the awards for burial expenses, civil indemnity, exemplary damages and moral damages were warranted or should be modified.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)