G.R. No. 73486 -87. April 18, 1989.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMPLICIO SABANAL, et al., accused, BIENVENIDO SABANAL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Bienvenido Sabanal, was convicted of murder for the killing of Benito Salas and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The incident occurred on the evening of January 5, 1977, in Pamplona, Negros Oriental. Bienvenido, accompanied by six other men, went to the house of the 70-year-old victim, Benito Salas, inquiring about the whereabouts of Benito’s son, Macario. When Benito gave a curt reply and turned his back to enter his house, Bienvenido suddenly drew a bolo and hacked him from behind, hitting the back of his neck and causing instant death.
Bienvenido denied involvement, presenting an alibi that he was praying 700 meters away at the time. However, he was positively identified by three eyewitnesses, including the victim’s daughter. Crucially, two of his co-accused, including a cousin, also testified that they saw him commit the killing. The prosecution established a motive rooted in a boundary dispute; five days prior, Macario Salas had shot Bienvenido with an air rifle after being threatened, leading to reciprocal criminal complaints between the parties.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing to justify a conviction for murder, as opposed to homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the appellant’s alibi as ridiculous and upheld the factual finding that Bienvenido was the perpetrator, based on the credible and positive identification by multiple witnesses, including his own co-accused.
However, the Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding of treachery. While the attack was sudden and from behind on a defenseless old man, the legal essence of treachery requires that the method of attack was consciously adopted to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The Court found that the killing was not premeditated against Benito. The group’s original target was Macario. Benito’s cold dismissal and act of turning away constituted a provocation that impulsively ignited Bienvenido’s ire, leading to the sudden hacking. The Court cited People v. Manlapaz, ruling that provocation by the victim negates treachery even if the attack is sudden. Here, the provocation, while not grave enough to be a mitigating circumstance, indicated that the attack was not a deliberately planned execution but an impulsive act arising from the heated encounter. Consequently, the crime committed is homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Bienvenido to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and increased the civil indemnity to P30,000.