G.R. No. 100682 May 31, 1993
Gil Tapalla and Rene Tapalla, petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

On March 25, 1988, at about 7:00 p.m., several persons stoned the house of accused Gil Tapalla. Believing his neighbor Vicente Balayo was responsible, Rene Tapalla (Gil’s son) went out carrying a piece of bamboo and challenged Vicente to a fight. Vicente was then conversing with Carlos Rañola and Jose Arevalo. Carlos and Jose tried to pacify Rene but failed. The deceased, Ernesto Roy, Sr., happened to pass by. Upon seeing him, Rene said, “Here comes one of my enemies,” and suddenly struck Ernesto on the chest with the bamboo. Both then ran toward their respective homes. Before reaching his house, Ernesto hurled something at Rene. Infuriated, Rene went inside his house and came out armed with a samurai sword. He approached Ernesto, who was standing on the street, and started hacking him. Shortly after, Gil Tapalla joined the fray armed with a “guinonting” (a kind of bolo) and also attacked Ernesto, who tried to parry the thrusts with his arms. Ernesto fell to the ground severely wounded and bleeding. He was later brought to a hospital where he died. The autopsy revealed several wounds, with the probable cause of death being massive external hemorrhage. The PC soldiers arrested both accused and confiscated the weapons.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Rene Tapalla for homicide.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding Gil Tapalla guilty of homicide based on conspiracy.

RULING

1. The petition has no merit regarding Rene Tapalla. The Court of Appeals correctly found him guilty of simple homicide. His claim of self-defense is untenable. The stoning of his house did not constitute unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, who was not shown to be one of the stone throwers. When Rene came out brandishing a samurai sword, he became the unlawful aggressor. The means employed (a samurai sword) was unreasonable, as the stone throwers were not shown to be armed. The prosecution’s version was more logical given the location and nature of the victim’s injuries (on the arms and wrists, consistent with trying to shield himself). The findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals on credibility are binding, and no exceptional circumstances warrant a review.
2. The petition is granted regarding Gil Tapalla. The Supreme Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals’ finding that Gil Tapalla is also liable for homicide based on conspiracy. Conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence, as clearly as the crime itself, and cannot be inferred merely from joining the fray. There is no evidence that Gil and Rene conspired to kill Ernesto. Gil arrived long after the fray began and inflicted only one superficial wound (wound No. 4 on the left hand). This injury was not a probable cause of death. In the absence of conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose, criminal responsibility is individual. Thus, Gil Tapalla is guilty only of the lesser crime of less serious physical injuries.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with regard to Rene Tapalla (homicide) but modified with regard to Gil Tapalla, whom the Supreme Court finds guilty of less serious physical injuries. Rene Tapalla is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 7 years of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Gil Tapalla is sentenced to a straight penalty of 4 months of arresto mayor. Both are credited with the full period of their preventive imprisonment. Rene Tapalla is further ordered to pay indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Ernesto Roy.