G.R. No. 94592 September 28, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN CALIJAN Y MAGALSO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

At about 4:00 PM on June 30, 1989, in Sitio Pinanginan, Barangay Obat, Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental, accused-appellant Ruben Calijan, a farmer, persuaded Arnolfo Baya to accompany him to a market fair. They fetched Fredo Paunillan, and at Fredo’s place, Ruben took a six-inch hunting knife from Gerry Camporedondo and tucked it in his waist. The group proceeded to Felipe Nario’s house where Ruben drank rum and played cara y cruz. At 7:00 PM, Ruben and Arnolfo went to Francing Esia’s house, arriving around 10:00 PM, where they drank tuba, with Ruben consuming about a gallon. At 10:30 PM, they headed home.
En route, they passed the house of Gregorio Belnas, Arnolfo’s landlord. Ruben called out to Gregorio, “Nong, let us smoke.” Gregorio came down with a lamp and tobacco leaves. They sat on a bench, with Arnolfo and Gregorio side by side and Ruben facing them. After smoking for ten minutes, Ruben suddenly stood up and said, “Nong Gorio, you want to be killed?” Gregorio replied, “I have not done any offense against you, Ruben, because we have not quarreled with each other.” Ruben retorted, “If I want to kill you, I may kill you now.” Arnolfo tried to pacify Ruben, but Gregorio ran towards the door. Ruben overtook him, held his left hand, and stabbed him on the left chest with the hunting knife. Gregorio died of hemorrhage that night. Arnolfo ran away.
Between 11:00 PM and midnight, Ruben went to the house of Edwin Baya, Arnolfo’s brother, and told him, “Dong, come with me because ‘Gorio’ is already dead.” They went to Gregorio’s house, where Ruben pointed to the body and told Edwin to lift it so they could throw it into the Sicopong River. Edwin refused, but Ruben threatened him with the knife. After disposing of the corpse, they went to the house of Ruben’s relative, Walter Calijan, where Edwin heard Ruben admit to Walter’s wife that he killed Gregorio. Edwin reported the incident the next day, leading to Ruben’s arrest.
Ruben denied responsibility, testifying that he heard Gregorio shouting for help, went to his house, and saw Arnolfo and Edwin standing over Gregorio’s body. They told him to go home, calling Gregorio a “traitor.” The trial court credited the testimonies of the Baya brothers, found Ruben guilty of murder qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, and aggravated by adding ignominy by throwing the cadaver into the river. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs P30,000. On appeal, Ruben admitted killing Gregorio but argued it was only homicide, lacking treachery and evident premeditation.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery to convict the accused-appellant of murder, or whether the crime committed is homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Evident premeditation could not be deduced merely from Ruben taking a knife six hours before the killing, absent proof of prior enmity or notorious acts showing a determined plan. The killing was spur-of-the-moment, induced by intoxication. Treachery was absent because there was an open confrontation moments before the stabbing, placing the victim on guard, as he attempted to escape.
The act of throwing the cadaver into the river constituted the generic aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the corpse, not “adding ignominy,” but since it was not alleged in the Information, it could only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. This was offset by the mitigating circumstance of intoxication that was not habitual.
The crime committed is homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances offsetting each other, the maximum penalty was taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months), and the minimum from the penalty next lower in degree, prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years). The Court imposed an indeterminate prison term of 8 years, 4 months, and 10 days of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to 14 years, 10 months, and 20 days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.