Title
People vs. Bato
Case
G.R. No. 127843
Decision Date
Dec 15, 2000
During a town fiesta, Herman and Jacinto attacked Reynaldo Sescon, killing him. Herman was convicted of murder; Jacinto, as an accomplice. Treachery was present; self-defense claims were rejected.

Facts of the Case

On the morning of August 16, 1995, prosecution witnesses, including Rogelio Conato, were having breakfast at Gabriel Bulac's home, after which Reynaldo joined Jacinto and Herman at Carlos Cadayona's house, where they were drinking. An altercation arose when Jacinto struck Reynaldo with a nearly empty rum bottle, after which Herman stabbed Reynaldo twice. These fatal injuries resulted in Reynaldo's death shortly thereafter. A post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Eva Jesus C. Arligue confirmed the nature of the wounds inflicted.

Procedural History

On October 3, 1995, Provincial Prosecutor Andres G. Yu Jr. filed an information for murder against the Bato brothers, who both pleaded not guilty at their arraignment on November 8, 1995. The Regional Trial Court conducted a trial, hearing testimony from four prosecution witnesses and the accused-appellants. On October 28, 1996, the trial court convicted both brothers of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay civil indemnity and funeral expenses to Reynaldo's heirs. The Bato brothers appealed the decision.

Issues Raised

The appellate court considered four main issues: (1) existence of conspiracy between the accused; (2) whether treachery was present to qualify the killing as murder; (3) the credibility of prosecution evidence; and (4) the applicability of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.

Court's Ruling: Conspiracy

The court found no proof of conspiracy. Although Herman made a statement indicating intent to kill, there was no evidence of a prior agreement between the brothers to kill Reynaldo. Jacob's initial attack was not fatal, nor was there a clear plan to murder Reynaldo. Instead, Jacinto's actions were deemed those of an accomplice rather than co-principal, reducing his culpability.

Court's Ruling: Treachery

The killing was characterized as murder due to the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Herman's attack was premeditated, and Reynaldo had no opportunity to defend himself as he was unexpectedly attacked while in a seemingly friendly social engagement. This combination of surprise and vulnerability fulfilled the criteria for treachery, thus affirming the trial court's determination of murder rather than homicide.

Court's Ruling: Credibility of Evidence

The appellate court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and consistent. Rogelio’s testimony indicated that there were no signs of altercation before the stabbing, reinforcing the narrative of treachery. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility, based on the firsthand observation of witness demeanor, was respected and upheld.

Court's Ruling: Self-Defense

The court rejected the claim of self-defense, which the accused-appellants asserted. The trial court determined that they did not prove that Reynaldo was the unlawful aggressor, and thus self-defense could not be invoked. Consequently, their intoxication at the time of the incident was irrelevant to their claims.

Penalty Imposed

Given the conviction of Herman as a principal in murder, the court upheld the sentence of reclusion perpetua as appropriate, devoid of aggr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.