GR 66634; (February, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 66634 February 27, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGAPITO MOLATO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of January 13, 1983, in Barangay Old Rizal, Catarman, Northern Samar, Avelino Cabales was called from his house by Agapito Molato. As testified to by his wife Ursula and neighbor Salustiana Tagros, when Cabales approached, Molato and his co-accused Teodulo Balero immediately and repeatedly slashed him with bolos, causing his death. The attack was sudden, and the victim was unarmed. Balero later pleaded guilty to homicide. Molato was tried for murder. The prosecution evidence included eyewitness accounts and a thumbnail found at the scene, which matched Molato’s injured thumb. The autopsy revealed sixteen wounds on the victim.
The trial court convicted Molato of murder, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and the generic aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and recidivism. It imposed the death penalty. Molato appealed, challenging witness credibility, the rejection of his defense, and the appreciation of the aggravating circumstances.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted Molato of murder, qualified by treachery, and properly determined the penalty in light of constitutional changes.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, finding their testimonies consistent and reliable. It ruled that treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the unarmed victim unable to defend himself. This qualified the killing as murder. However, the Court disagreed with the trial court’s appreciation of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, noting these were not proven with the same clarity as treachery. Recidivism was also erroneously appreciated, as it was not alleged in the information.
Regarding the penalty, the Court applied the constitutional prohibition against the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution. Abandoning a prior doctrine that created new penalty ranges, the Court held that the constitutional change only prohibits the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua, leaving the other periods of the penalty for murder unchanged. Consequently, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the civil indemnity to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). The decision was affirmed with these modifications.