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

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-32792)

Factual Background

At the relevant time, the prosecution evidence showed that between 6:30 and 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 in Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte. After about 7:00 o’clock, the deceased left the drug store. His wife did not know where he was going, although she expected him to proceed to Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte. Contrary to that expectation, he went to the house of the Bastasa spouses at Jones Street, Dipolog to determine whether Dionisio had arrived, since he had placed an order for cigarettes with the appellant in Zamboanga City.

When informed by Virginia that Dionisio had not yet arrived, the deceased decided to wait. He sat on a chair in the sala while Virginia, with her back to him, sewed on a sewing machine. While the deceased remained in the sala, reading a fashion magazine, Dionisio fired shots at him. Another group of witnesses corroborated that shots had been heard from the Bastasa house. At about 8:30 o’clock, Francisco Balboza, Jr., together with Blanco Carreon and other students, were playing cards at the second floor of a nearby rented house. After playing around 9:30 o’clock, they moved downstairs and heard gunshots. Looking toward the Bastasa house, they saw a man, later identified as the deceased, fully clothed, his face soaked with blood, walking slowly toward the kitchen while Dionisio stood behind him aiming a gun. Dionisio fired. The deceased fell near the kitchen floor. The witnesses later saw Virginia come out from their room. They testified that Virginia and Dionisio undressed the deceased and brought his naked body to the sala and then to the balcony. Afterward, they heard four or five successive shots. Dionisio and Virginia then left the house.

Dionisio did not deny the shooting. He admitted that he shot the deceased in the evening of December 2, 1966, but offered a different narrative. According to him, he returned to Dipolog at about 9:00 o’clock and, on his way home, he noticed the jeep of the deceased parked about 70 meters from his house near the establishment of a certain Omamalin. After passing through a secret passage leading to the old balcony that he used to avoid disturbing his sleeping wife and children, he saw a jacket on a table and noticed a .45 caliber pistol there. Believing someone was inside their bedroom, he took the pistol and went downstairs. He then climbed a ladder to observe without being noticed.

From that position, Dionisio claimed that he saw the deceased, naked from the waist, lying with Virginia and having sexual intercourse with her. Dionisio stated that his feet slipped, causing noise. The deceased stood up. Dionisio then shot the deceased four times while the deceased was still in the bedroom area. The deceased ran to the sala, picked up his jacket, and Dionisio fired three more shots. The deceased ran to the kitchen with the jacket on his breast. Dionisio pursued upstairs. He then heard a sound of a body crashing and, looking toward the new balcony, saw a plywood board fall, with the deceased falling with it. After going up, Dionisio shot the deceased two more times. He also described turning over the body, removing the trousers, and attempting to cut the penis but stopping when he heard the approaching jeep. He claimed he left, placed the pistol on the stomach of the deceased, failed to get a motorcab, went to relatives for assistance to secure a bond, and eventually surrendered to the PC Headquarters at Sicayab, Dipolog. He told the authorities that he had killed a man inside his own house.

Trial Court Findings and Disposition

When the accused were arraigned on February 17, 1967, both pleaded not guilty. After trial, on July 16, 1970, the trial court found that the prosecution proved Dionisio’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder, with evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance. It held, however, that the aggravating circumstance was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The court sentenced Dionisio to reclusion perpetua. It further ordered damages in specified amounts: P12,000.00 as indemnity, P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages, and imposed payment of one-half of the costs.

As to Virginia, the trial court determined that she was only an accessory-after-the-fact under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. As the spouse of Dionisio, it held she was exempt from criminal liability, and it acquitted her from the information, canceled her bond for provisional liberty, and ordered one-half of the costs de oficio.

The trial court also provided that Dionisio would be credited with the full period of preventive imprisonment if he agreed in writing to abide by disciplinary rules imposed on convicted persons, and with only four-fifths if he did not so agree.

Appellant’s Assignment of Error

On appeal, Dionisio challenged the trial court’s penalty. Among his arguments, he contended that the court erred in not applying Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code when imposing the penalty.

The Solicitor General’s Evaluation and the Supreme Court’s Agreement

The Solicitor General recommended a modification based on the nature of the killing. The Solicitor General observed that Dionisio’s version was more credible than that of the prosecution because it allegedly aligned with physical facts. The Solicitor General’s assessment included several points: that empty bullet shells were found consistent with four shots being fired while the deceased was inside the bedroom; that the absence of bullet holes on the deceased’s T-shirt supported the claim that the deceased was wearing only pants at the time of initial shooting; that bullet holes on the deceased’s jacket did not tally with wounds on the upper portion of the body, allegedly supporting the use of the jacket as a shield; and that bullet impacts on fashion magazines indicated the deceased could not have been sitting on a chair reading a fashion magazine at the time the first shots were fired. The Solicitor General also relied on the manner in which the corpse was found, including the jacket under the right arm and the position of clothing, as consistent with Dionisio’s description of the deceased’s fall and subsequent positioning.

The Solicitor General further noted antecedent circumstances, particularly alleged ongoing illicit relations between the deceased and Virginia, as supported by the evidence, and concluded that the deceased’s real purpose in going to the Bastasa house on December 2, 1966, was to indulge in the sexual act with Virginia while Dionisio was away. This conclusion, according to the Solicitor General, was reinforced by the fact that Dionisio had left for Zamboanga City on November 30, 1966 without informing his wife when he would return, creating an opportunity for the deceased and Virginia.

Based on these observations, the Solicitor General concluded that Dionisio killed the deceased under the conditions covered by Article 247. Consequently, the Solicitor General recommended sentencing destierro, as provided by the first paragraph of Article 247.

The Supreme Court stated that it had carefully examined the records and agreed with the Solicitor General’s observations and conclusion. The Court held that Dionisio killed the deceased while the latter was in the act of committing sexual intercourse with Virginia and that the appealed decision had to be modified in accordance with Article 247.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Application of Article 247

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s characterization of the offense. It did so by applying Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill either of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

After applying that provision, the Supreme Court sentenced Dionisio to destierro, as contemplated by the first paragraph of Article 247.

Credit for Preventive Imprisonment and Release

The Supreme Court then addressed the consequence of the time already served. Dionisio had been under preventive imprisonment since December 2, 1966, which the Court described as almost twelve (12) years by the time of its ruling. The Court reasoned that destierro has a duration of six months and one day to six years. It observed that Dionisio had more than served the full duration of the penalty even un

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-32792)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted spouses Dionisio Bastasa @ Diony and Virginia Dugenia Bastasa @ Virgie for murder in Criminal Case No. 4609 before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte.
The trial court found Dionisio Bastasa @ Diony guilty of murder with evident premeditation, offset by voluntary surrender, and convicted him as principal.
The trial court ruled that Virginia Dugenia Bastasa @ Virgie was an accessory-after-the-fact under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, and then declared her exempt from criminal liability as spouse of the principal.
Dionisio Bastasa @ Diony appealed, assigning error on the sentencing theory, specifically the failure to apply Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court modified the appealed judgment and recalibrated the penalty and the effect of preventive imprisonment.

Key Factual Allegations

The information charged that on or about December 2, 1966, in Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte, the accused, conspiring with each other, shot Atty. Solomon Sudiacal with intent to kill by means of treachery and with evident premeditation.
The trial record established that between 6:30 and 7:00 o’clock in the evening, the deceased was at the drug store of Leonora Lacaya Sudiacal (a pharmacist), with the couple’s presence in the store context.
After 7:00 o’clock, the deceased left the drug store and, instead of going to Katipunan, went to the house of the Bastasa spouses at Jones Street to determine whether Dionisio Bastasa @ Diony had arrived from Zamboanga City.
The deceased waited in the sala while Virginia Bastasa @ Virgie, facing away from him, sewed on a sewing machine.
The evidence showed that after the deceased was seated in the sala while scanning a magazine, Dionisio Bastasa @ Diony fired shots at him, inflicting multiple gunshot wounds.
Witness testimony from the rented house area indicated that shots were heard, and that the deceased was observed walking toward the kitchen while Dionisio followed behind aiming a gun, after which the deceased fell.
Witness accounts stated that after the initial falling incident, the spouses undressed the deceased, brought his body to the sala and balcony, and later fired additional shots before leaving the house.
The prosecution’s evidence painted the killing as an ambush and shooting event evolving within the house setting.
The appellant’s admissions and narration placed the shooting inside his house under his claimed discovery of a sexual act involving his wife.

Appellant’s Version and Defense Theory

Dionisio Bastasa @ Diony admitted shooting the deceased in the evening of December 2, 1966.
He stated that on November 30, 1966, he went to Zamboanga City to check customs matters and pay for a boarding permit, and he did not inform his wife when he would return.
He testified that he arrived home at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of December 2, 1966.
He claimed that upon arriving, he saw the deceased’s jeep parked nearby and proceeded through a secret passage and balcony route at night without disturbing his sleeping wife and children.
He testified that he saw a jacket and a .45 caliber pistol in the sala, believed someone was inside the bedroom, and took the pistol to investigate.
He asserted that from a ladder position he saw the deceased naked from the waist lying down with his wife and having sexual intercourse with her.
He claimed that his feet slipped from the ladder, making noise, and that upon the deceased standing he shot the deceased four times.
He further testified that the deceased ran out, grabbed his jacket, and that the appellant then fired three more shots, after which the deceased ran into the kitchen with the jacket on his breast.
He stated that he heard a body crash against a provisional shutter board as the deceased fell, then climbed up and fired two more shots.
He testified that he turned the deceased over, attempted to cut the penis but stopped upon hearing an approaching jeep, and placed the pistol on the stomach of the deceased before leaving to surrender.
He stated that he did not initially secure a motorcab and instead obtained a car from Dr. Destura and arranged bond assistance via his cousin, then surrendered to PC Headquarters at Sicayab, Dipolog.
He told the authorities that he killed a man inside his own house.

Prosecution and Solicitor General’s Assessment

The decision noted that the Solicitor General believed the appellant’s version to be more credible than the prosecution’s account.
The Solicitor General reasoned that physical circumstances supported the appellant’s claim of timing and positions during the shooting.
The Solicitor General cited the presence of four empty bullet shells on the bedroom floor as consistent with the appellant’s claim of firing four shots while the deceased was inside the bedroom.
The Solicitor General pointed to the absence of bullet holes on the deceased’s T-shirt despite wounds on