G.R. No. 89597 -98 September 17, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Oscar Balderama and Ernesto Balderama, defendants. Ernesto Balderama, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Separate informations were filed against brothers Oscar and Ernesto Balderama for the killing of Nestor Duran in Tondo, Manila on September 3, 1983. Initially, an information for homicide was filed against Oscar Balderama (Criminal Case No. 28993). After a review by the Ministry of Justice, a second information for murder was filed against both brothers (Criminal Case No. 36370). The trial court initially allowed the amendment of the homicide information to murder, but later held that dismissing the homicide information and amending it to murder would place Oscar in double jeopardy, as he had already pleaded not guilty to the homicide charge. The cases were consolidated, and the court directed that the brothers be tried under separate informations. This order was challenged up to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that trying Oscar for murder would place him in double jeopardy. The Supreme Court remanded the case for trial, with Oscar to be tried for homicide and Ernesto for murder.
The prosecution evidence, from witnesses Jose Noda, Jr. and Enrico Ebueng, established that in the early morning of September 3, 1983, a heated argument occurred between Ernesto Balderama and Nestor Duran at a wake. After being pacified, Ernesto left but returned armed with a piece of wood, challenging Nestor to a fight. As Nestor backed away, Ernesto shouted, “Birahin mo na.” Oscar Balderama then emerged from behind and stabbed Nestor at the back. Nestor died from his wounds. The defense presented a different version, claiming Ernesto, a barangay tanod, was warning a group against drinking in the street when Nestor, drunk, attacked him with a knife. During the scuffle, an unidentified person (whom Ernesto later learned was his brother Oscar) stabbed Nestor.
The trial court convicted Ernesto Balderama of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It convicted Oscar Balderama of homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue for resolution in the appeal by Ernesto Balderama was whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery to convict him of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. It held that the killing of Nestor Duran was attended by treachery. The attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The fact that Nestor was backing away from Ernesto, who was armed and challenging him to a fight, when Oscar suddenly appeared and stabbed him from behind, ensured the execution of the attack without risk to the assailants. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and consistent. The defense of denial and alibi was weak and could not prevail over positive identification. The Court affirmed Ernesto Balderama’s conviction for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also affirmed Oscar Balderama’s conviction for homicide and his indeterminate sentence. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 for each accused.