G.R. No. L-68731. February 27, 1987.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO BAUTISTA Y MERCADO, JOSE BAUTISTA Y MERCADO, ISAIAS YAMBAO alias “BIBILUGIN,” et al., accused, ROMEO BAUTISTA Y MERCADO and JOSE BAUTISTA Y MERCADO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

During town fiesta festivities in Macabebe, Pampanga, on September 4, 1983, a tumultuous affray erupted near the Enver Restaurant. Prospero Enriquez, Jr. sustained multiple stab wounds, resulting in his death the following day. An Information for Murder was filed against several accused, including brothers Romeo and Jose Bautista. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted both brothers of Murder qualified by treachery, sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to pay indemnity and damages.
The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Rene Bernarte and Venerando Yambao. Bernarte testified that after a provocation inside the restaurant, he left to fetch police. Upon returning, he saw Romeo Bautista stab Pablo Liangco and then grab Prospero Enriquez, Jr. from behind by the neck. Both fell to the ground, with Prospero on top, and Romeo stabbed him several times. Bernarte also stated that Jose Bautista and Isaias Yambao, armed with knives, blocked Prospero’s path before fleeing. Yambao corroborated seeing Jose and Isaias block and stab at Prospero before Romeo grabbed him from behind.

ISSUE

The main issues were: (1) the credibility of the prosecution witnesses; (2) the presence of treachery to qualify the killing as murder; and (3) the existence of conspiracy among the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. On credibility, the Court found the testimonies of Bernarte and Yambao credible and consistent on material points, sufficiently establishing the participation of Romeo Bautista in the killing. However, the Court ruled that treachery was not present. The qualifying circumstance of treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the killing without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed the attack occurred during a “tumultuous affray” or a free-for-all commotion involving many individuals. In such a chaotic scenario, the mode of attack was not shown to have been deliberately chosen to eliminate any possible defense from the victim. The attack arose from the confusion of the brawl, not from a methodical execution.
Regarding conspiracy, the Court found it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy requires a common design and concerted action. The act of Jose Bautista and Isaias Yambao in running away towards the municipal building immediately, instead of assisting Romeo when he grappled with the victim, negated the existence of a concerted plan to kill. Their flight was inconsistent with a common criminal purpose. Consequently, only Romeo Bautista’s individual liability was established.
The Court acquitted Jose Bautista for reasonable doubt. Romeo Bautista was convicted only of Homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil indemnity was adjusted accordingly.