GR 135066; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135066 . February 15, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERLITO TUMANON, CARLO TUMANON, BARBARA TUMANON, JUNREL TUMANON, and WINNIE TABIOLO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants were charged with the murder of Rany Bautista. The prosecution presented eyewitness Warren Tapao, who testified that in the early morning of October 19, 1997, he and the victim were walking home when they were blocked by the accused-appellants, who were armed with bladed weapons. Berlito Tumanon attempted to stab Bautista, who then fled towards a ricefield. The group chased and overtook him. Tapao witnessed Berlito, Carlo, Junrel, and Winnie repeatedly stab and hack the victim, while Barbara Tumanon held a flashlight to illuminate the scene. The victim sustained 24 hacking and stab wounds. The defense, led by Berlito, claimed self-defense, alleging the victim attacked first with a knife during a confrontation over a prior incident.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellants of murder, qualified by treachery, and properly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of minority for some accused.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of self-defense by Berlito Tumanon was untenable. The number, location, and severity of the victim’s wounds—24 in total, inflicted by multiple assailants—were grossly disproportionate to any purported unlawful aggression from an unarmed victim, negating the elements of self-defense and indicating a determined effort to kill. The Court upheld the finding of treachery. The attack was sudden, from behind as the victim fled, and executed by a group armed with bolos and knives against a lone, unarmed individual, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. This method directly and specially ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants.
Regarding penalties, the Court affirmed the sentences. For the adult accused (Berlito, Barbara, Winnie), reclusion perpetua was proper. For the minors, Carlo (17) and Junrel (14), the Court applied the mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. Carlo’s penalty was reduced by one degree, resulting in an indeterminate sentence. Junrel, being under 15, received a penalty two degrees lower. The awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages (supported by receipts) were also sustained as legally sound.