G.R. No. 106152 April 19, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Fordito Ruelan y Villaber, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Fordito Ruelan was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City and sentenced to “life imprisonment.” The information alleged that on August 18, 1988, in Davao City, with intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation, he attacked and assaulted Rosa Jardiel with an axe, inflicting fatal hack wounds. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution established that appellant was a store helper for the victim and her husband. On the day of the incident, around 4:00 a.m., appellant and the victim were leaving their residence to open the store. The victim scolded appellant after their house dog got loose. While walking ahead, the victim continued berating appellant. Appellant, pleading for her to stop, eventually struck the victim behind her right ear with an axe, causing her to fall. He then dragged her body to a grassy area and left. The police later recovered a blood-stained axe and sack near the body. Appellant surrendered days later. At the police station, assisted by CLAO lawyer Atty. Luz Cortez, he executed an extrajudicial confession detailing the crime. Appellant contested the confession’s admissibility, claiming he was not properly apprised of his rights and that it was fabricated.

ISSUE

The main issues for review are: (1) whether appellant can be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt without the extrajudicial confession; (2) whether the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength; and (3) whether the imposition of “life imprisonment” was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the extrajudicial confession was admissible, as Atty. Cortez testified she fully apprised appellant of his constitutional rights before the investigation, and appellant voluntarily executed the confession. However, the Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. The attack was frontal, and the victim was aware of appellant’s presence, as she was walking ahead and scolding him. There was no evidence that appellant employed a method to ensure the victim’s defenselessness. Evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were also not proven. The killing was thus homicide, not murder. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium period. The trial court’s award of civil indemnity was also modified. The Court sentenced appellant for the crime of Homicide to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered him to indemnify the victim’s heirs in the amount of P127,000.00.