GR 111549; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111549 July 5, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTEMIO ORTALEZA y PRADO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The spouses Edgar and Helen San Juan were awakened one evening by accused Artemio Ortaleza. Ortaleza, with companions Bong Balin, Rodel Cortez, and Rudy Balin, was allowed onto the balcony. While conversing, Rudy Balin suddenly hacked Edgar from behind. Ortaleza then pinned the fallen Edgar down, enabling further attacks. Edgar broke free and fled but was chased and killed. Helen escaped and reported the incident. Police found Edgar’s body with hack wounds and his burned house. At Ortaleza’s nearby home, police found him trembling with bloodstains on his shirt, which his wife claimed were from a chicken killed for a drinking session.
Ortaleza presented a different account, claiming he was merely accompanying the Balins and tried to help Edgar up after the initial attack, which Helen misinterpreted. He asserted his non-flight indicated innocence. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of murder but imposed an incorrect penalty of reclusion temporal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but correctly identified the proper penalty as reclusion perpetua, certifying the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of Artemio Ortaleza for the crime of Murder and the imposition of reclusion perpetua.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision. The Court found no reason to disturb the lower courts’ findings, rejecting Ortaleza’s version as self-serving and unbelievable. Evidence established the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The attack was sudden, from behind, while the unarmed victim was conversing, ensuring execution without risk from any defense. Conspiracy was also proven. Ortaleza had a drinking session with his co-accused, initiated contact with the victim, pinned the victim down after the first blow, and participated in the chase. Conspiracy is inferred from such acts showing unity of purpose. The proper penalty for murder under the circumstances is reclusion perpetua, not reclusion temporal. The indemnity to the heirs was correctly increased to P50,000.00.