G.R. No. 66645 - People vs. Bacho

Case Summary (G.R. No. 66645)

Factual Background

Around 11:30 o’clock in the evening of 16 April 1981, Melchor Mora and the deceased Felipe Openiano, Jr. walked along Del Pilar Street in Catarman towards the garage of Estanislao de Silva. Mora testified that they had come from the house of Jose Sevilla, where Mora remitted proceeds from the sale of fresh fish. Along the way, Mora stopped to urinate at the side of the road, and Openiano, Jr. proceeded ahead. After Mora finished, he went to the garage but found that Openiano, Jr. was not there. Mora then returned to Del Pilar Street and continued towards the corner of Nalazon Street.

Mora testified that about 11 meters ahead and near the corner where a Pepsi Cola truck was parked, he saw Openiano, Jr. being “ganged up” by Ruben Bacho, Eduardo Paragato, Raymundo Horca, Rogelio Muncada, and Brigido Escasinas, who was at large. Mora stated that these persons took turns boxing Openiano, Jr. He further testified that Ruben Bacho stabbed Openiano, Jr. at the back, which caused the victim to fall. Mora attempted to assist the victim but Ruben Bacho, who was holding a bolo, prevented him from coming near.

Mora added that a man with a flashlight, identified as Nicolas Ubaldo, arrived and the attackers scampered away towards the bodega of the Pepsi Cola truck. Nicolas Ubaldo instructed Mora to report the incident to the police. When Mora returned with policemen a few minutes later, Mora testified that Ruben Bacho was still there brandishing his bolo and challenging everyone to fight. The policemen arrested Ruben Bacho, and they brought the victim to the hospital, but the victim died en route.

An autopsy conducted by Dr. Hernando Cometa found three stab wounds: two located at the front and one at the back, as well as abrasions under the left eye, nose, left elbow, knees, and left shin, a hematoma below the sternal notch, and an incised wound on the right index finger.

Defense Evidence and Denials

The accused-appellants denied participation in the infliction of injuries that resulted in death. Ruben Bacho claimed that he was lying on a bench beside the parked Pepsi Cola truck that evening and that a person held him by the neck and struck him with a hollow block on the head. He also claimed that after the assailant stabbed him, hitting his right lower armpit, he pushed the person and ran away, and he later received treatment at the Northern Samar General Hospital.

Eduardo Paragato maintained that he was asleep at the back of the Pepsi Cola bodega and that he did not know of the incident until the following day.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

Upon completion of the trial, the trial judge found the three accused—Ruben Bacho, Raymundo Horca, and Eduardo Paragato—guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength, and sentenced each to suffer the death penalty. The trial court ordered Rogelio Muncada’s dismissal upon his death and dismissed the case against him with costs de oficio. The trial court’s dispositive portion also required payment of P12,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased, with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and allowed full credit for preventive imprisonment if the convicted prisoners signed the required agreement.

Issues on Review and the Parties’ Contentions

On automatic review and appeal, the question narrowed to whether the trial court correctly found the accused guilty of Murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength. Counsel de oficio for the defendants-appellants argued, and the Solicitor General agreed, that the trial court erred in finding conspiracy in the killing and that the proper classification should reflect the correct assessment of qualifying circumstances. However, even as the Solicitor General and the defense urged an incorrect conclusion on conspiracy, the decision resolved both conspiracy and treachery in its substantive evaluation of the evidence.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that the contention denying conspiracy lacked merit. It reasoned that the prosecution evidence showed the accused’s common purpose to assault and inflict harm upon the deceased and supported a finding of concerted execution. The Court inferred a common agreement from the evidence that the accused, who worked in the warehouse of the Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. in Catarman, “ganged up” on Felipe Openiano, Jr. and took turns beating him up, then fled together towards the other side of the parked Pepsi Cola truck. The Court also rejected the defense theory that conspiracy was lacking merely because the appellant Ruben Bacho wielded the bolo and stabbed the deceased while the others used only fists. The Court held that the use of the bolo to inflict injury was not a radical departure from what the accused had intended, because the common intent was to inflict serious injury, and the resulting death legally followed from the group attack. In support, it cited People vs. Enriquez and, by analogy, United States vs. Patten, stating that conspirators pursuing a criminal attack on a defenseless victim and continuing the assault could still be held liable when the victim is killed by a weapon-inflicted wound inflicted during the beating, even if the weapon was not initially contemplated.

The Court then examined whether treachery could be appreciated. It reiterated that for aléviosía or treachery to qualify the killing, the offender must have used means, methods, or forms in the execution that tended directly and specifically to ensure execution without any risk from any defense the offended party might make. The Court stressed that treachery requires that the method of attack be deliberately chosen to accomplish the killing without risk to the aggressor. It further noted jurisprudential rules that premeditated method cannot be appreciated where the killing resulted from a casual encounter and the accused had no time to reflect, or where the particulars of the aggression and how the killing began and developed are not shown.

Applying these standards, the Court concluded that the evidence did not establish treachery. It found that the prosecution witnesses did not show how the aggression began or how the assault developed into the fatal stabbing. Mora testified that he left the garage and later saw the deceased being assaulted by five persons, but he did not witness the start of the incident. Nicolas Ubaldo likewise testified only that he saw a group clashing at a distance and a person falling, and after focusing his flashlight he recognized the deceased. The testimony indicated that the death occurred after the stabbing, but it did not sufficiently describe the circumstances of the approach or the manner by which the attack started and unfolded. The Court also observed that the encounter appeared accidental, because there was no evidence that the accused knew beforehand that the deceased would pass by the warehouse at that particular time.

The Court further held that the presence of a stab wound at the back was not, by itself, indicative of treachery because two other stab wounds were inflicted at the front. It also considered Mora’s statement that the back stab was the cause why the victim fell, and it treated the back wound as the last inflicted based on the evidence presented.

At the same time, the Court found the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength to be present. It emphasized that the beating and assault involved five persons and that each used combined strength against an unarmed victim: Bacho was armed with a bolo, Horca carried a lead pipe, and Muncada threw stones, while all took advantage of their numbers and forceful coordination during the assault. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the killing was Murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, while treachery could not be appreciated.

Because the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength remained, and there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances shown, the Court determined the appropriate penalty under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code by taking the medium period, which it identified as reclusion perpetua. As to civil liability, it modified the indemnity payable to the heirs. It increased the amount to P30,000.00 and held that it should be paid jointly and severally by the surviving appellants Ruben Bacho alias Ruben Padolla and Eduardo Paragato, noting that the case against Rogelio Muncada had been dismissed due to death and that Raymundo Horca had died during the pendency of the case.

Disposition and Outcome

The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction but modified the qualifying circumstances and the resulting

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 66645)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted Ruben Bacho alias Ruben Padolla, Raymundo Horca alias Mundo, Eduardo Paragato alias Daydo, and Rogelio Muncada alias Ngola for Murder.
The case was filed before the Court of First Instance of Northern Samar as Criminal Case No. 1381.
The trial court found Ruben Bacho, Raymundo Horca, and Eduardo Paragato guilty of Murder, and sentenced each to Death.
The trial court ordered the case against Rogelio Muncada dismissed after he died during the trial, and imposed costs de oficio.
The records were elevated to the Supreme Court for review due to the Death penalty.
After the commutation of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution, the accused were asked if they wished to continue their appeal.
Raymundo Horca died during the pendency of the appeal, and the case proceeded as an appealed case only for the remaining appellants who manifested their desire to proceed.

Key Factual Allegations

The information alleged that on or about 16 April 1981 at about 11:30 p.m. in Catarman, Northern Samar, the accused conspired with Brigido Escasinas @ Breding (who was still at large) to murder Felipe Openiano, Jr.
The information alleged that the accused used multiple weapons, including bolos, an iron pipe, a chair, and a piece of stone, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength.
The information further alleged that the assault caused multiple serious injuries and mortal wounds on different parts of the victim’s body, resulting in his death.
The prosecution evidence showed that Felipe Openiano, Jr. was attacked on Del Pilar Street near a parked Pepsi Cola truck.
Melchor Mora, a prosecution witness, testified that he saw the group “ganging up” on the victim and taking turns in boxing him.
Mora testified that Ruben Bacho stabbed the victim at the back, causing him to fall, and that Mora was prevented from approaching because Ruben Bacho was holding a bolo.
A witness, Nicolas Ubaldo, arrived with a flashlight during the incident and the attackers fled toward the bodega area of the Pepsi Cola truck.
Police arrested Ruben Bacho while the victim was later brought to the hospital, where he died on the way.

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court conducted the criminal proceedings after arraignment, where Ruben Bacho, Raymundo Horca, and Eduardo Paragato entered Not Guilty pleas.
The arraignment of Rogelio Muncada, described as a deaf-mute and mentally ill, was deferred until he could face his accusers.
After trial, the court found Ruben Bacho, Raymundo Horca, and Eduardo Paragato guilty of Murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength.
The trial court imposed the Death penalty on each of the three convicted accused and ordered the payment of indemnity of P12,000.00, in equal shares of one-fifth each, to the heirs of the victim, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The trial court dismissed the case against Rogelio Muncada due to his death and imposed costs de oficio.

Evidence for the Prosecution

Melchor Mora testified that he and the victim were walking along Del Pilar Street at about 11:30 p.m. on 16 April 1981.
Mora stated that after stopping to urinate, the victim went ahead and Mora later returned to Del Pilar Street and proceeded toward Nalazon Street.
Mora testified that near the corner where a Pepsi Cola truck was parked, he saw the five persons assaulting the victim and taking turns in boxing him.
Mora testified that he saw Ruben Bacho stab the victim at the back and that the victim fell after the stabbing.
Mora testified that when he tried to help the victim, Ruben Bacho prevented him by brandishing a bolo.
Mora testified that police were called and, upon their arrival, Ruben Bacho was still brandishing his bolo and challenging others to a fight.
Nicolas Ubaldo corroborated that he saw a group clash, that one person fell quickly, and that when he shone his flashlight, he recognized the fallen man as the victim.
Ubaldo testified that he observed about five persons in the group who clashed.
Dr. Hernando Cometa conducted an autopsy and testified that the victim had three (3) stab wounds, with two (2) at the front and one (1) at the back, plus various abrasions and hematoma.
Dr. Cometa’s findings also included an incised wound on the right index finger, supporting the occurrence of physical struggle or defensive injury.

Defense Evidence and Denials

The appellants denied participation in the infliction of the injuries that resulted in the victim’s death.
Ruben Bacho alias Ruben Padolla testified that while he was lying on a bench beside the parked Pepsi Cola truck, a person held him by the neck and struck him with a hollow block on the head.
Ruben Bacho testified that after being stabbed, he pushed his assailant and ran away, and he received treatment at the Northern Samar General Hospital.
Eduardo Paragato alias Daydo testified that he was asleep at the back of the Pepsi Cola bodega and did not learn of the incident until he woke the next day.
The defense claimed, in substance, that the prosecution failed to prove their participation in the stabbing and killing.

Appellants’ Core Contentions

Counsel de oficio for the defendants-appellants argued, and the Solicitor General agreed, that the trial court erred in finding conspiracy.
Counsel further argued that, even assuming liability, the offense should not be Murder qualified by treac