G.R. No. 92536 November 8, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO BUELA, MANUEL BUELA, and BONIFACIO BUELA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

An information was filed accusing Ricardo, Manuel, and Bonifacio, all surnamed Buela, of Murder for the killing of Bienvenido Bodino on December 27, 1988, in Tabaco, Albay. The prosecution’s version, as found by the trial court, states that on the morning of the incident, Ricardo invited Bodino for a drink. While dancing together later, they tripped and fell, causing Ricardo’s eyebrow to bleed. Bodino then went home. At around 1:00 P.M., while Bodino was in his front yard, he was suddenly attacked by the three appellants: Bonifacio first hit him with a wooden club (“bahi”), Ricardo hacked him with a bolo, and Manuel also struck him with a club. After walking away, Ricardo returned and hacked the prostrate Bodino again. The defense claimed Bodino was the aggressor, alleging that after an earlier altercation, Bodino, armed with a club, struck at Ricardo but hit their mother, Aurora Buela, instead. Bonifacio then wrestled the club from Bodino and struck him. The trial court convicted all three appellants of Murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The main issues raised on appeal were: (1) whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defense’s version that Bodino was the aggressor and that their mother was present at the crime scene; (2) whether the trial court erred in finding that Manuel Buela participated in the killing; and (3) what crime was actually committed and the proper penalties.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It found the defense’s claim that their mother was present at the crime scene to be a concocted story, noting the appellants’ failure to rebut the prosecution’s testimony that she was not there. The Court also affirmed Manuel Buela’s participation, as established by the clear and convincing testimonies of prosecution witnesses. However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstances of abuse of superior strength, treachery, and evident premeditation alleged in the information were not proven. There was no evidence that the appellants secured advantage from their combined strength, that the attack was executed in a manner making it impossible for the victim to retaliate, or that there was a clear plan evidencing determination to kill. The crime committed was therefore Homicide, not Murder. The appellants were found guilty of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty imposed was within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellants were sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of seven (7) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. The civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim was increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. The judgment of the trial court was AFFIRMED with these modifications.