G.R. No. 66645 March 29, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN BACHO @ RUBEN PADOLLA, RAYMUNDO HORCA @ MUNDO, EDUARDO PARAGATO @ DAYDO, and ROGELIO MUNCADA @ NGOLA defendants: RUBEN BACHO @ RUBEN PADOLLA and EDUARDO PARAGATO @ DAYDO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Accused Ruben Bacho, Raymundo Horca, Eduardo Paragato, Rogelio Muncada, and another at-large were charged with Murder for the killing of Felipe Openiano, Jr. on April 16, 1981, in Catarman, Northern Samar. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Melchor Mora, testified that he saw the accused, together with others, “ganging up” on the unarmed victim near a parked truck. He specifically witnessed Ruben Bacho stab Openiano at the back, causing him to fall. Mora attempted to help but was threatened by Bacho, who was brandishing a bolo. The accused fled upon the arrival of a bystander with a flashlight, but Bacho was later arrested at the scene. The victim died en route to the hospital. The autopsy revealed multiple injuries, including three stab wounds.
The defense presented alibis and denials. Bacho claimed he was himself attacked and stabbed by an unknown assailant that night. Paragato asserted he was asleep during the incident. The trial court convicted Bacho, Horca, and Paragato of Murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength, imposing the death penalty. The case was elevated for automatic review. During appeal, Horca and Muncada died, leaving only Bacho and Paragato as appellants.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellants are guilty of Murder, and if so, what is the proper penalty and civil liability?

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty and indemnity. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the eyewitness testimony as credible and rejected the appellants’ defenses as unsubstantiated. However, it disagreed with the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court reasoned that for treachery to qualify the killing to murder, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the aggressor. The evidence showed the attack commenced with a fistfight or a ganging up, and the fatal stab was delivered during this melee. This sequence did not indicate a deliberate and sudden attack from behind without any opportunity for defense, which is essential for treachery.
Nonetheless, the killing was properly qualified as Murder due to abuse of superior strength. The Court emphasized that five individuals, three of whom were armed with a bolo, an iron pipe, and stones, collectively assaulted a single unarmed victim. They took advantage of their combined strength to overpower him, which is a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua in its medium period. Following the constitutional prohibition of the death penalty, the Court sentenced appellants Bacho and Paragato to reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00, to be paid jointly and severally by the two surviving appellants.