GR L 54000; (March, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. 54000 . March 6, 1984.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ESPERIDION RECIMIENTO, JR., and ROMEO RECIMIENTO, Defendants-Appellants.
FACTS
The appellants, brothers Esperidion Recimiento, Jr. and Romeo Recimiento, were convicted of murder for the killing of barrio councilman Gregorio Macapaz. The prosecution evidence, primarily from the victim’s sons Frisco and Elpidio Macapaz, alleged that on the evening of May 15, 1978, during a fiesta in Asturias, Cebu, a commotion occurred near Frisco’s house. Gregorio approached to pacify a quarrel. According to Frisco, Romeo suddenly stabbed Gregorio in the chest with a small bolo, after which Esperidion moved in and also stabbed him with a hunting knife. The brothers allegedly continued to stab the fallen victim. Gregorio, in a dying declaration, identified both appellants as his assailants before succumbing to his wounds.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the participation of Romeo Recimiento in the killing, and (2) whether the crime committed was murder or the lesser offense of homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It acquitted Romeo Recimiento due to reasonable doubt regarding his participation. The Court highlighted several inconsistencies: the prosecution failed to present Freddie Tabañag, a non-relative eyewitness who was with the victim’s sons, creating a suspicion his testimony might have been unfavorable; the medico-legal findings suggested the wounds could have been inflicted by a single type of weapon, contrary to testimony describing two different weapons; and Frisco Macapaz gave conflicting statements on who delivered the first blow. These circumstances collectively cast sufficient doubt on Romeo’s guilt.
For Esperidion Recimiento, Jr., the Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s recommendation to modify the conviction from murder to homicide. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established, as the attack on the victim, who was intervening in a quarrel with a lamp in hand, did not clearly constitute a deliberate and sudden method ensuring no risk to the assailants. Appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in Esperidion’s favor and finding no aggravating circumstances, the Court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He was also ordered to pay indemnity to the heirs.