G.R. No. 127843; December 15, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERMAN D. BATO @ HERMAN and JACINTO D. BATO @ MEO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

During a town fiesta in Malitbog, Southern Leyte, the victim Reynaldo Sescon, accused-appellants Herman and Jacinto Bato, and witness Rogelio Conato were drinking Tanduay Rum at a house balcony. The group had been drinking since the previous evening. While they were intoxicated, Jacinto suddenly struck Reynaldo on the head with an almost empty rum bottle. Immediately thereafter, Herman declared, “Patyon ta ni” (“We will kill him”), and proceeded to stab Reynaldo twice, causing fatal wounds. Rogelio, frightened, ran away. A post-mortem examination confirmed the victim died from massive bleeding due to severed arteries.
The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of Murder, sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to pay indemnity and funeral expenses. The court found conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Accused-appellants appealed, arguing the absence of conspiracy and treachery, challenging the credibility of prosecution witnesses, and claiming incomplete self-defense.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether conspiracy existed between the accused; (2) whether treachery qualified the killing to murder; (3) the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence; and (4) the availability of incomplete self-defense as a mitigating circumstance.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It found no conspiracy. Conspiracy requires a common criminal design, deducible from acts showing concerted action. Here, Jacinto’s act of hitting the victim with a bottle was sudden and not shown to be in pursuance of a prior agreement to kill. Herman’s subsequent declaration and independent act of stabbing did not establish Jacinto’s concurrence with a homicidal intent. Without conspiracy, each accused is liable only for his own acts.
The Court also ruled that treachery was not present. The attack was not deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailants. The drinking session was a casual, social gathering where the victim was not defenseless. The suddenness of Jacinto’s initial blow did not constitute treachery as the mode of attack was not deliberately chosen. The killing was thus homicide, not murder. The claim of incomplete self-defense was rejected for lack of factual basis. Consequently, Herman was found guilty of Homicide for the stabbing, and Jacinto was found guilty of Less Serious Physical Injuries for the bottle attack. The case was remanded for proper sentencing.