G.R. No. L-32792 - People vs. Bastasa

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32792)
Advanced

Facts:

Information and charge in the trial court

In Criminal Case No. 4609 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, spouses Dionisio Bastasa and Virginia Bastasa were charged with the crime of murder.
The information alleged that on or about December 2, 1966, in the municipality of Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte, within the court’s jurisdiction, the accused conspired, confederated, and worked together.
The information alleged that they were armed with a firearm and acted with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation.
The information alleged that they shot Atty. Solomon Sudiacal, inflicting multiple gunshot wounds on various parts of his body, at least one of which caused his death on the spot.

Plea and proceedings

On February 17, 1967, both accused entered a plea of not guilty.
After trial, the trial court rendered judgment on July 16, 1970.

Trial court dispositive outcome

The trial court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused Dionisio Bastasa @ Diony for murder as principal, with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.
The trial court held that evident premeditation was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the PC authorities in Sicayab, Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte soon after the killing.
The trial court found accused Virginia Dugenia Bastasa @ Virgie to be only accessory-after-the-fact under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.
As spouse of the accessory-after-the-fact, the trial court held her exempt from criminal liability.
The trial court sentenced Dionisio Bastasa @ Diony to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Atty. Solomon Sudiacal in P12,000.00, and to pay P10,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs.
The trial court acquitted Virginia Bastasa @ Virgie with one-half (1/2) costs de oficio, and ordered the cancellation of her bond.
The trial court ruled that Dionisio Bastasa would be credited with the full period of his preventive imprisonment if he agreed in writing to abide by laws and disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted persons, and with only 4/5 thereof if he did not so agree.

Prosecution evidence on the killing and sequence of events

From 6:30 to 7:00 o’clock in the evening of December 2, 1966, Atty. Solomon Sudiacal was with his wife Leonora Lacaya Sudiacal, a pharmacist, in their drug store at Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte.
After 7:00 o’clock, the deceased left their drug store.
Leonora did not know where the deceased was going; she expected him to go to Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte.
Instead of going to Katipunan, the deceased went to the house of the spouses Dionisio Bastasa and Virginia Bastasa at Jones Street, Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte.
The deceased went there to find out if Dionisio Bastasa, whom he had placed an order for cigarettes with, had arrived from Zamboanga City.
Virginia Bastasa informed the deceased that the appellant had not yet arrived.
The deceased decided to wait and sat in the sala while Virginia, who had her back to him, sewed on a sewing machine.
While the deceased was in the sala sitting and scanning a fashion magazine, Dionisio Bastasa fired shots at him.
At about 8:30 p.m., Francisco Balboza, Jr. with Blanco Carreon and other students were playing cards at the second floor of a house rented by Leoncio Corpuz.
After playing cards at around 9:30 p.m., Balboza and the companion went home.
While they were downstairs, they heard shots from the Bastasa spouses’ house.
Looking toward the Bastasa house, they saw a man—later identified as the deceased—fully clothed, face soaked in blood, slowly walking toward the kitchen while the appellant was behind him aiming a gun.
The appellant fired at the deceased, who then fell on the kitchen floor.
Balboza and his companion approached the house and, standing on a coconut stump, saw Virginia Bastasa come out from their room.
The spouses undressed the deceased and brought his naked body to the sala and then to the balcony.
Not long afterwards, they heard four or five successive shots, and then Dionisio and Virginia left their house.

Appellant’s testimony and admitted act of shooting

Dionisio Bastasa admitted that he shot the deceased in his house in the evening of December 2, 1966.
He testified that on November 30, 1966, he went to Zamboanga City to inquire from the Bureau of Customs about what foreign boat would dock at Pulawan and to pay for a boarding permit, without informing his wife when he would return.
On December 2, 1966, he arrived home in Dipolog City at about 9:00 p.m.
While going home, he saw the deceased’s jeep parked about 70 meters away near the establishment or store of one Omamalin.
Upon reaching his home, he passed through a secret passage leading to the old balcony, used especially at night to avoid disturbing his wife and children.
On reaching the balcony, he saw a jacket on top of the center table in the sala.
He also found a .45 caliber pistol on the center table.
Believing someone was inside the bedroom, he took the pistol and went downstairs through the same old balcony.
Finding the pistol loaded, he climbed a ladder on the northern side of the house to see who was inside without being noticed.
From the ladder, he saw the deceased naked from the waist, lying down with his wife and having sexual intercourse with her.
He slipped from the ladder and grabbed a board, creating some noise.
The deceased stood up, and the appellant shot him four times.
The deceased ran out of the bedroom to the sala and picked up his jacket; the appellant fired three more shots.
The deceased ran to the kitchen with the jacket on his breast; the appellant climbed the ladder to pursue him upstairs.
Hearing a sound as if a body crashed against a plywood board serving as a temporary shutter of the new balcony door, the appellant looked toward the new balcony and saw the plywood board fall down with the deceased.
The appellant went up the house and fired two more shots.
He turned over the deceased, then removed his trousers intending to cut his penis, but desisted when he heard the sound of an approaching jeep.
He left, placed the pistol on the stomach of the deceased, failed to get a motorcab, and proceeded to the house of his uncle, Dr. Destura, to use the latter’s car.
He then went to the house of his cousin, ...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Proper qualification and penalty

Whether the trial court erred in imposing murder and reclusion perpetua, instead of applying Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the killing occurred under the exceptional circumstance covered by Article 247, i.e., the legally married person surprised the spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, and killed either or both in the act or immediately thereafter.

Credit for preventive imprisonment and applicability of Article 29

Whether the benefits of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6127, could be extended to the accused when the penalty imposed is destierro.
Whether destierro constitutes deprivation of liberty such that preventive imprisonment must be credited under ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32792)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32792)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32792) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32792) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32792)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32792)
Advanced