G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Alejandro Bajar, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Alejandro Bajar, was charged with the murder of his 85-year-old father-in-law, Aquilio Tiwanak. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from his wife Lolita and daughters Ana and Alma, established that on the evening of August 16, 1999, a heavily intoxicated Alejandro went to Aquilio’s house looking for his wife. After an exchange, Alejandro forcibly entered through the kitchen door armed with a bolo. The eyewitnesses, viewing through gaps in a bamboo wall, saw Alejandro repeatedly hack Aquilio, who was lying on his bed. Ana intervened by holding Alejandro’s bolo-wielding hand, while the victim stood and embraced his attacker. Lolita arrived, struck Alejandro with a piece of wood, rendering him unconscious, after which Aquilio died from his wounds. The defense presented a starkly different version, with Alejandro claiming he acted in self-defense after Aquilio allegedly struck him with a piece of lumber first, prompting him to use a hunting knife.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt, and if so, whether the penalty of death was correctly imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were the appellant’s own family members, to be credible, consistent, and corroborated by the medical findings. Their account clearly established the elements of murder qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, directed at an elderly victim lying defenseless on his bed, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The Court rejected the claim of self-defense as inherently improbable and unsupported by evidence, noting the nature, number, and location of the victim’s fatal wounds were inconsistent with a spontaneous, defensive action.
However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua because the information failed to allege with specificity the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age. While the victim’s age was stated, the information did not expressly aver that the appellant deliberately took advantage of or intentionally disregarded the respect due to the victim because of his age. This omission precluded its use to justify the imposition of the supreme penalty. With treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and no other aggravating circumstance properly alleged and proven, the proper penalty under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua.