G.R. No. L-25174 January 30, 1970
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO SIBAYAN alias ISIONG, ET AL., defendants, DIONISIO SIBAYAN alias ISIONG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

An information was filed charging Dionisio Sibayan, Pedro Moreno, and Herminio Caspillo with the murder of Lorenzo Grospe on June 7, 1964, in Talugtog, Nueva Ecija, alleging conspiracy, evident premeditation, and treachery. After trial, the Court of First Instance acquitted Pedro Moreno and Herminio Caspillo but convicted Dionisio Sibayan of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment, indemnity of P6,000 to the heirs, and payment of costs. Sibayan appealed. Prosecution witnesses, including Carmen Castillo (victim’s spouse), barrio captain Marceliano Caspillo, Alejandro Soriano, and patrolman Benjamin de Fiesta, testified that Sibayan and the victim were neighbors who had an altercation on the night of the incident, after which Sibayan struck Grospe on the head with a piece of hard wood, causing his death. Soriano and de Fiesta identified Sibayan as the assailant, with de Fiesta chasing him unsuccessfully. The appellant’s wife admitted to Marceliano Caspillo that her husband killed Grospe. Municipal Judge Alfredo Leybag testified that he notarized Sibayan’s sworn confession (Exhibit A), which admitted the killing, and confirmed it was voluntarily given. Sibayan and his wife fled Talugtog the morning after the incident. The defense only presented Sibayan, who denied the voluntariness of his confession, but his testimony contained material contradictions with Exhibit A.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly convicted Dionisio Sibayan of murder, or whether the evidence supports a conviction for a lesser offense.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the lower court. It upheld the conviction of Dionisio Sibayan for the killing of Lorenzo Grospe but found that the offense committed was homicide, not murder. The Court agreed with the trial court’s assessment of the prosecution witnesses’ credibility and found the evidence sufficient to establish Sibayan’s guilt. However, it noted that the trial court’s decision was silent on the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery alleged in the information, and the record lacked evidence to prove these circumstances. The evidence indicated the appellant and the deceased were facing each other when the fatal blow was struck, negating treachery. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present, the offense is simple homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court sentenced Sibayan to an indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years of prision mayor to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal and increased the indemnity to the heirs to P12,000.