G.R. No. 111149 September 5, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff and appellee, vs. Renato Bautista, (Arman Hernandez, Arnold Mendoza & Jess Sabarin — At Large), defendants and appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Renato Bautista, along with co-accused Arman Hernandez, Arnold Mendoza, and Jess Sabarin (who remained at large), was charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Manila for the killing of Rodel Yarza on December 14, 1989. The Information alleged conspiracy and abuse of superior strength. Only Bautista was arrested and tried. The prosecution’s evidence included the eyewitness account of Charlie Yarza, who testified that he saw Bautista, Hernandez, Mendoza, and Sabarin chase, maul, and stab the victim. The victim’s wife, Zenaida Yarza, testified that at the hospital, the dying victim identified his assailants as his playmates, specifically naming “Rene” (Renato Bautista) as the one who stabbed him, and also naming Arnold Mendoza, Ricky (Jess) Sabarin, and Arman Hernandez. The victim’s father, Efren Bautista, also told Zenaida at the hospital that he saw his son (the appellant) get a knife before the incident. The defense version claimed that the victim initially hit appellant with a bottle, after which appellant went home; his three co-accused, upon hearing of the incident, proceeded to assault the victim, while appellant was allegedly restrained by his mother from joining. The trial court convicted Renato Bautista of Murder, sentencing him to Reclusion Perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the victim’s heirs. The court qualified the killing to murder based on abuse of superior strength and also found generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation (offset by mitigating circumstance of provocation). Bautista appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Renato Bautista of Murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found direct evidence, including the positive eyewitness testimony of Charlie Yarza, sufficient to establish appellant’s participation in the chase and stabbing. Crucially, the victim’s ante-mortem statements to his wife, identifying appellant as the stabber and naming his accomplices, constituted a valid dying declaration admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The Court outlined the requisites for a dying declaration: (a) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) made under the consciousness of an impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness had he survived; and (d) the declaration is offered in a case where the declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry. These requisites were met. The Court rejected the defense of alibi for being weak and unsubstantiated. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding of evident premeditation, holding that the interval between the initial altercation and the killing was insufficient to constitute cool reflection. Nonetheless, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as alleged in the Information, was present, as the lone, unarmed victim was overpowered by four assailants, two of whom were armed (Bautista with a knife and Sabarin with a dustpan). Thus, the killing was properly qualified as Murder. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the award of civil indemnity were affirmed.