G.R. No. 57415 December 15, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PASCUAL BAYLON RILLORTA, WESLEY RILLORTA and WILSON RILLORTA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The accused, Pascual Rillorta and his sons Wesley and Wilson, were convicted by the trial court of the complex crime of direct assault with murder for the killing of Barangay Captain Emiliano Doton. The prosecution evidence established that on May 7, 1979, the accused stopped a threshing party, which included the victim, in Barangobong, Natividad, Pangasinan. Pascual, armed with a bolo, warned the party not to thresh in the barrio. When Barangay Captain Doton intervened and advised them to let the party pass, the three accused chased him, overtook him, and pushed him toward a creek. Prosecution witness Ceferino Facon testified that Wesley and Wilson held Doton’s hands while Pascual hacked him with a bolo. The victim sustained thirty-two bolo wounds. The accused were apprehended, and a bolo was surrendered and another recovered from their house. Wesley also gave a written statement admitting he hacked the victim.
The defense presented a different version. Pascual and Wesley claimed self-defense, alleging that Doton attacked Pascual first, and Wesley intervened to defend his father. They pointed to Pascual’s injured fingers as proof of the attack. Wilson raised an alibi, claiming he was in Tayug having a tire repaired at the time of the incident. The trial court rejected these defenses and convicted all three accused.

ISSUE

The core issues on appeal were: (1) whether the killing was attended by treachery; (2) whether the victim was performing his official duties when attacked; (3) whether the accused acted in legitimate self-defense; and (4) the correctness of the penalty imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven. The attack was not shown to be deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailants. The victim was forewarned by the earlier confrontation, and the manner of assault did not indicate a treacherous mode of attack. Therefore, the crime committed was homicide, not murder. However, the Court affirmed that the victim, as a Barangay Captain, was a person in authority performing his official duty of settling a dispute when he was assaulted and killed. The defense of self-defense was untenable. The nature, number, and location of the victim’s wounds (32 hack wounds) were inconsistent with a claim of defense and indicated a determined effort to kill. Pascual’s minor finger injuries did not prove unlawful aggression by the victim, especially given the testimony that the victim’s hands were being held during the attack. Wilson’s alibi was correctly rejected as he was positively identified by the prosecution witness.
Consequently, the complex crime committed was homicide with assault upon a person in authority. Applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty is the maximum period of the penalty for the more serious crime, which is homicide punishable by reclusion temporal. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was modified. All three accused were found guilty as principals. The Court sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered them to pay indemnity to the victim’s heirs.