Title
People vs. Bautista y Sabado
Case
G.R. No. 139530
Decision Date
Feb 27, 2004
Appellant, after a drinking spree, chased and killed the deceased, claiming self-defense. Convicted of homicide, mitigating circumstances were rejected; sentenced to 12-14 years, 8 months, and ordered to pay damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 139530)

Procedural History

The trial court issued its decision on January 26, 1999, finding the appellant guilty of murder, as defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. As a result, Bautista was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim both actual expenses amounting to P32,397.00 and a mandatory civil indemnity of P50,000.00.

Facts of the Case

On the night of the incident, the appellant and the deceased were among a group having a drinking spree. Following the departure of their companions, an altercation arose. Witness Lorenzo Dumase observed the appellant pursuing the deceased. Hilario, who later encountered the appellant and Danilo, the appellant's brother, noted that Bautista had a blood-stained shirt and admitted to killing Bacoling. Furthermore, upon confessing to another companion, Buyagan, the appellant indicated his guilt, which led to police involvement. An autopsy performed on Bacoling revealed multiple wounds as the cause of death.

Arguments Presented

The appellant claimed self-defense, asserting that he had been provoked. He recounted that prior to the killing, Bacoling had insulted him, leading to a confrontation that resulted in his using Bacoling's bolo against him. The trial court ultimately concluded that evidence presented established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Court's Findings on Murder vs. Homicide

The trial court categorized the crime as murder based on the presence of treachery, which, under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, requires specific circumstances. The court determined that the appellant took advantage of the deceased's vulnerable position, as the latter was running away and caught off guard when attacked from behind.

Analysis of Treachery

The court highlighted that treachery, as defined in jurisprudence, necessitates a method of execution that prevents the victim from defending themselves. Ultimately, the court found sufficient evidence to affirm that treachery was involved, distinguishing this case from precedents where the victim had a chance to evade or defend themselves.

Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances

In addressing the appellant's claim for mitigating circumstances such as drunkenness, provocation, and unlawful aggression, the court found insufficient evidence to substantiate these claims. While it was established that Bautista and his companions had been drinking, it was not demonstrated that his intoxication impaired his capaci

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.