G.R. No. 82815 -16 October 31, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO CARPIO, EDWIN BABLIS, AND ARNOLD CARPIO, accused, PEDRO CARPIO, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Pedro Carpio and the victim, Patrolman Luis Pacis, Jr., were neighbors with a history of animosity stemming from a land boundary dispute. This ill-feeling was exacerbated when Pacis reported appellant’s son for a curfew violation. On February 20, 1979, appellant and his cousin, co-accused Edwin Bablis, were seen together on appellant’s motorcycle. Appellant inquired about Pacis’s whereabouts at the municipal hall, stating “kursunada ko siya.” Bablis later hitched a ride with Pacis. An eyewitness, Francisco Palpallatoc, testified that he later saw appellant and Bablis attacking Pacis. Palpallatoc saw Bablis holding Pacis from behind while appellant stabbed him. The victim died from multiple stab wounds. After a joint trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Pedro Carpio and Edwin Bablis (who was tried in absentia) of murder qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. Arnold Carpio was acquitted. Pedro Carpio appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Pedro Carpio of murder, specifically in appreciating the qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court, upholding the credibility of the eyewitness account which positively identified appellant as one of the assailants. However, the Court rejected the qualifying circumstances. Treachery was not established because the attack was not shown to be sudden and from behind without any risk to the assailants; the eyewitness saw a struggle, indicating the victim could have put up a defense. Evident premeditation was not proven, as appellant’s remark and his being seen with Bablis did not conclusively show when a plan to kill was conceived or the lapse of time before its execution. Abuse of superior strength was also not present, as the prosecution failed to demonstrate a notorious inequality of strength between the two assailants and the victim, a policeman, or that such advantage was deliberately sought. In the absence of any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00. The decision was affirmed with modification.