G.R. No. 111098-99 - People vs. Biso

On February 16, 1984, shortly after midnight, Dario Pacaldo, a black belt in karate, entered an eatery in Masinop, Tondo, Manila, owned by Augustina Yalong.
While at the eatery, Dario made unwanted sexual advances toward Teresita Yalong, the 14-year-old daughter of Augustina, in the presence of Teresita’s brother, Eduardo Yalong.
Dario embraced Teresita and inappropriately touched her private parts. Despite Teresita and Eduardo’s attempts to seek help by calling their mother, Augustina, Dario left the eatery and went to a nearby pub and disco.

After Dario’s departure, Augustina and Teresita sought assistance from Barangay Captain Lachica and later filed a complaint at the police station.
Dario was briefly detained by the police at the Gereli Pub House and Disco but eventually was released pending further complaint action.
In the early hours of the same day, Eduardo contacted his cousin, Pio Biso (also known as Bisoy), an ex-convict known in the area, to report the incident involving Teresita.

Eduardo, Pio, and two others (referred to as Boy Madang and Butso) conspired to confront Dario. They waited in an alley near Dario’s residence expecting his appearance.
At about 1:20 a.m., after Dario arrived in a taxicab, Eduardo, Pio, Boy Madang, and Butso initiated the assault.
Eyewitness Porfirio Perdigones testified that during the assault, Eduardo restrained Dario’s wrist and covered his mouth, while Boy Madang and Butso assisted by holding him down. Pio then stabbed Dario near the breast with a fan knife (balisong).
Following the assault, Eduardo and his companions fled the scene, leaving a severely wounded Dario who managed to crawl to a nearby house where his brother Felixberto and father Roberto witnessed his condition before calling for help.

Dario was taken to Mary Johnston Hospital, where he died shortly after arrival.
The autopsy, performed by Dr. Marcial G. Cenido, revealed multiple fatal stab wounds—specifically, penetrating wounds at the left anterior thorax and left posterior lumbar regions along with associated internal injuries such as massive left hemothorax.
The autopsy report confirmed that the stab wounds were the direct and immediate cause of Dario’s death.

Pio Biso was arrested shortly after the incident, while Eduardo initially evaded capture and was later apprehended in Pampanga.
Separate Information dockets were filed against Pio Biso (Criminal Case No. 84-24430) and Eduardo Yalong (Criminal Case No. 84-25774) for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which were later consolidated.
During arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. Eduardo, however, admitted to stabbing Dario but claimed that he lacked the intent to kill.
On March 20, 1984, Eduardo reiterated his admission to stabbing the victim during a police interview.
On June 9, 1987, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31, rendered its decision finding both Pio and Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering payment of civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs.

Pio Biso later filed a motion to withdraw his appeal, which was granted in a resolution dated October 16, 2000, thereby closing his case.
Eduardo Yalong filed an appeal contending errors in the trial court’s findings regarding treachery and evident premeditation and argued that he should be convicted of homicide instead of murder.
The appellant focused on the insufficiency of evidence to categorize his act as murder by challenging the prosecution’s proof of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation.

Whether the prosecution established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the crime was committed with treachery, i.e., by means which left the victim no opportunity to defend himself.
Whether the evidence sufficiently demonstrated evident premeditation, including the offender’s resolution and overt acts that confirmed his determination to kill.

Whether Eduardo Yalong’s actions, as admitted to stabbing the victim without a clear intention to kill, should constitute murder or be downgraded to homicide in the absence of clear evidence of evident premeditation.

Whether the imposition of reclusion perpetua (or its equivalent) was proper considering the appellant’s mitigating circumstance of minority (being 17 years old at the time of the crime).
Determining the correct quantum of imprisonment and whether the indeterminate sentence law applies to modify the penalty in light of the appellant’s age and other mitigating factors.