GR 125318; (April, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125318 April 13, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HILARIO REBAMONTAN alias “AYONG,” accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that on the evening of April 22, 1994, in San Julian, Eastern Samar, accused-appellant Hilario Rebamontan stabbed Pedro Cagrado, Jr. with a “depang” (a small bolo). Eyewitnesses testified that the appellant, initially positioned behind the victim, stabbed him in the chest. The victim, unaware of the attack, was unable to parry the thrust. He ran but collapsed and died. The medico-legal report confirmed the fatal stab wound. The defense presented a different version, claiming self-defense. Appellant testified that the victim attacked him first without provocation, forcing him to retaliate with his bladed weapon.
ISSUE
The core issue for automatic review is whether the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of death for the crime of murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be present. The attack was sudden, from behind, and employed a lethal weapon, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The claim of self-defense failed, as the appellant did not prove unlawful aggression by clear and convincing evidence; his testimony that he was unharmed despite the alleged prior attacks rendered his narrative unconvincing.
However, the Court held the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 63 of the same Code, when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties and no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty must be applied. In this case, while treachery qualified the killing to murder, it was not considered a generic aggravating circumstance that would justify the imposition of the greater penalty. With no other modifying circumstances present, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court thus modified the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua and affirmed the award of civil indemnity.