G.R. No. 130598 February 3, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENITO MIER Y VISTAL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Benito Mier was charged with Murder for the killing and beheading of Pablito Laguros. The prosecution evidence established that on the evening of September 28, 1995, in Catigbian, Bohol, Mier, armed with a bolo, approached the victim Laguros by the roadside. Mier persistently asked Laguros if he knew a person who had picked a fight with him earlier. After Laguros repeatedly answered in the negative and started to leave, Mier suddenly hacked him from behind. The unarmed victim attempted to flee but Mier chased and hacked him several more times at the back. Eyewitness Danilo Quindao clearly saw the attack under the illumination of a fluorescent lamp. The victim’s decapitated body was later found on the road.
The defense presented a different version, claiming Mier was at home at the time of the incident. Mier testified that he had an altercation with a certain “Titing” earlier that day and later heard from his son that a person was killed. He asserted that the prosecution witnesses were coerced into testifying against him by the victim’s brother, a policeman. The trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible, convicted Mier of Murder qualified by treachery and cruelty, and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of Murder and whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and cruelty were proven to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Quindao, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, to be credible and sufficient to establish Mier’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His testimony was consistent and detailed, corroborated by the medical findings on the victim’s wounds.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court upheld the presence of treachery. The attack was sudden and from behind, directed at the victim’s back, ensuring that the unarmed and unsuspecting Laguros had no opportunity to defend himself. This method of execution deliberately and directly ensured the accomplishment of the killing without risk to the assailant. However, the Court ruled that the circumstance of cruelty was not proven. While the act of beheading is inherently cruel, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused deliberately and inhumanly augmented the victim’s suffering. The evidence did not conclusively show that the beheading occurred while the victim was still alive; it was equally probable that it was performed after his death. Any doubt as to the existence of an aggravating circumstance must be resolved in favor of the accused. Evident premeditation was also not proven. With treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and with no other modifying circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The award of civil indemnity and moral damages was sustained.