G.R. No. 25336 - People vs. Lianting

The case involves two separate criminal cases stemming from a single incident on the evening of January 1, 1967, in Roxas City, Capiz.
In Criminal Case No. CCC-XI-32, the appellant, Antonio Boduso, was convicted of murder for the killing of Jose de Leon.
In Criminal Case No. CCC-XI-33, he was convicted of frustrated homicide for stabbing Rolando Regalado.
The crime was committed while the two victims were walking along Bilbao Street at about 9:00 p.m.

Prior to the incident, Rolando Regalado and his second cousin, Jose de Leon, were at a karinderia near the Bayot Theater, drinking beer.
Antonio Boduso, identified by his nickname “Tony,” joined the two men at the establishment after being previously seen by them at the public market.
After finishing their drinks and settling the bill, the two cousins prepared to leave the premises.
As they were leaving, Boduso insisted that they continue drinking; however, they declined his invitation.
While they were proceeding toward the Sampaguita Theater, Rolando overheard Boduso remark, “We shall have no regrets.”
The group spent a short time at the theater lobby before continuing home along Bilbao Street.
Suddenly, Boduso intercepted them and stabbed Jose de Leon with an approximately 8½-inch knife, inflicting a fatal wound in the lower abdomen.
In the ensuing chaos, Rolando Regalado, who was only about a meter away, questioned Boduso, prompting Boduso to stab him as well.
After the stabbing, Boduso fled the scene immediately.
Rolando managed to seek help by boarding a tricycle to St. Anthony’s Hospital, where he received immediate treatment.
Jose de Leon was rushed to the Roxas Memorial Hospital but succumbed at 2:45 a.m. on January 2, 1967.
Rolando Regalado underwent three surgical operations due to complications from the stab wounds, incurring medical expenses amounting to P3,000.00.

Boduso denied any participation in the stabbing and attributed the crimes to a man named Danton Anisco.
He alleged that Anisco, whose breath he noted smelled of liquor, had accompanied him and, during the journey, unexpectedly attacked the two victims.
Boduso claimed that after the stabbing, Anisco urged him to flee by shouting, “Ton, you run away, because I have stabbed.”
Contrary to his version, Boduso failed to report the incident to the police, and his account was only offered during trial.
His defense also included claims regarding the mitigating circumstance of intoxication, which he asserted affected his judgment at the time of the crime.

The primary eyewitness, Rolando Regalado, established his identification of Boduso as the assailant.

Regalado had seen Boduso on prior occasions in the public market.
He could positively identify Boduso since he was only a few minutes removed from their interaction at the karinderia.

The court noted that the identification was made under conditions with sufficient light (moonlight along a not overly dark street) and clear observation.
During the testimony, Boduso’s demeanor (including laughing while Regalado testified) raised serious doubts about his credibility.
The court found that there was a conspicuous absence of any effort by Boduso, while in custody, to reassign responsibility to Danton Anisco.
Boduso’s silence and failure to clarify his version during preliminary investigation was seen as inconsistent with someone seeking to prove his innocence.
Additional corroborative details regarding the wounds and medical interventions supported the prosecution’s account of the crime’s circumstances.

Whether the single eyewitness identification by Rolando Regalado was sufficient to establish Boduso’s participation in the stabbing of both victims.
Whether the accused’s claim that Danton Anisco was the actual assailant could be given any credence, considering the lack of corresponding corroborative evidence.

Whether the crime should be qualified as one committed “with treachery” due to the manner of the attack on unarmed and unsuspecting victims.
Whether the additional circumstance of “evident premeditation” was proven by the evidence, given the absence of a clear lapse or reflection period by the accused.

Whether the claim for the mitigating circumstance of intoxication should be considered, based on Boduso’s conduct and explanation.
The effect of Boduso’s minority on sentencing, considering he was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense.
Determination of the appropriate penalty considering the applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the indeterminate sentence law.