GR 132392; (January, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132392 January 18, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR MARCOS Y MON, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Cesar Marcos was charged with the murder of his elder brother, Virgilio Marcos. The prosecution evidence established that on August 19, 1996, at around noon, the eyewitness Fernando Marcos Jr. saw Cesar suddenly emerge from their house and hack the unsuspecting Virgilio from behind while the latter was bending down near an artesian well. Virgilio fell, and Cesar delivered another hack. Fernando heard Cesar tell the victim, “Your life is not enough to pay the money you squandered.” Cesar later surrendered a bloodied bolo to the police. The post-mortem examination revealed the victim died from hemorrhage due to multiple hacking wounds.
The accused-appellant presented a different version, claiming self-defense. He testified that Virgilio tried to hack him first, and they grappled for the bolo, during which Virgilio tripped and accidentally hit his head with the weapon. The Regional Trial Court convicted Cesar of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to death. The case is now under automatic review.
ISSUE
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 upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia), as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. However, the imposition of the death penalty was erroneous. The trial court failed to properly apply the rules on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
The aggravating circumstance of relationship (the offender being a sibling of the victim) was present. This was, however, offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as the accused-appellant peacefully surrendered his weapon and submitted to arrest without resistance. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when only a qualifying circumstance (like treachery) is present and no other aggravating circumstance remains after offsetting, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court also modified the damages, reducing the actual damages to the amount supported by receipts and awarding civil indemnity ex delicto.