G.R. No. 137598 ; November 28, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JAYSON BERDIN, CASTRO CALEJANAN and LUCIANO SALUYO alias ISOT, appellants.

FACTS

The appellants were charged with the murder of Juliano Mampo. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including the victim’s son Jemuel and Rudy Yamilo, who testified that on the evening of June 10, 1997, after a visit to appellant Saluyo’s house, appellants followed the victim and his son. Jemuel witnessed appellants Calejanan and Saluyo holding his father’s arms while appellant Berdin hacked the victim’s head and neck with a bolo. Rudy Yamilo corroborated this account, stating he saw the attack from a distance. The medico-legal report confirmed fatal hack wounds to the head and neck.
For the defense, appellants Saluyo and Calejanan presented alibis, claiming they were at home and that only Berdin killed the victim, who later sought their help to surrender. Appellant Berdin invoked self-defense, alleging the victim attempted to break into his house, hacked at him, and that he only retaliated. The trial court rejected these defenses, convicted all three appellants of murder qualified by treachery, and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellants Jayson Berdin, Castro Calejanan, and Luciano Saluyo of the crime of murder.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution evidence, particularly the consistent and credible testimonies of two eyewitnesses, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses clearly described how Calejanan and Saluyo held the victim, rendering him defenseless, while Berdin delivered the fatal hacks. This manner of attack constituted treachery, qualifying the killing as murder. The appellants’ defenses were correctly rejected. The alibis of Saluyo and Calejanan were weak and uncorroborated. Berdin’s claim of self-defense was untenable as he failed to prove unlawful aggression by the victim; the number, location, and severity of the wounds inflicted were inconsistent with a mere act of repelling an attack and indicated a determined effort to kill.
However, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was alleged in the Information but was not proven with certainty to have been consciously adopted by the appellants. While the attack was treacherous, the evidence did not conclusively show that the appellants had deliberately and consciously chosen this method to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. Following prevailing jurisprudence, in cases where the attendance of the qualifying circumstance is not proven with moral certainty, the crime is homicide, not murder. Nevertheless, since the appellants did not question their conviction for murder before the Supreme Court, the Court sustained the murder conviction but applied the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua, there being no aggravating circumstances. The award of civil indemnity was also affirmed.