GR 139531; (January, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139531; January 31, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REYNALDO BAGANO alias Pugot a.k.a. REYNALDO FRIOLO, and PABLITO CAĂ‘ETE, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Reynaldo Bagano and Pablito Cañete were convicted of murder for the killing of Jeremias Montecino. The prosecution evidence established that at around 3:00 a.m. on May 23, 1995, the victim and his wife Merlinda were awakened by someone calling from outside their home in Cebu City. Jeremias went out, and Merlinda, peering through a window, witnessed Cañete suddenly embrace Jeremias at the gate. Bagano then stabbed Jeremias in the chest with an ice pick. The victim broke free and ran but was chased. Merlinda’s screams prompted the assailants to flee. Jeremias was rushed to the hospital but died from the wound.
On appeal, the accused argued that the conviction was erroneous, claiming the lone eyewitness testimony of Merlinda was unreliable given the pre-dawn darkness. They further contended that even if guilty, the crime should only be homicide, not murder, as treachery was not present.
ISSUE
Whether the conviction for murder, qualified by treachery, is proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction. The Court found Merlinda Montecino’s testimony credible. She clearly identified the appellants, who were known to her, as the area was illuminated by a mercury lamp. Her relationship to the victim lent credibility, as it is unnatural for an interested relative to accuse innocent persons.
Treachery was correctly appreciated. The essence of treachery under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code is the employment of means, methods, or forms of execution that deliberately ensure the act without risk to the offender from any defense the victim might make. The sudden embrace by Cañete, which restrained the victim, coupled with Bagano’s immediate stabbing, constituted a concerted attack that deprived Jeremias of any opportunity to defend himself. This was corroborated by the absence of defensive wounds on the victim. The time of the attack and the victim’s recent awakening merely facilitated the execution but were not the legal basis for treachery; the decisive factor was the sudden and overwhelming method employed.
Conspiracy was evident from their coordinated actions indicating a common purpose to kill. Thus, both appellants are equally liable. The penalty is reclusion perpetua, there being no modifying circumstances. The Court modified the damages, adding moral indemnity.