G.R. No. L-13815; September 26, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIAS OYCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Elias Oyco was charged with murder before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for killing Esmundo Macabibi, a totally blind man, on April 6, 1957. The information alleged the killing was committed with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery. The trial court convicted Oyco of murder, qualified by premeditation and aggravated by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, indemnity, and costs. Oyco appealed, contesting the court’s failure to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and its consideration of evident premeditation as aggravating. The prosecution evidence established that at about 8:00 a.m., Oyco arrived at a house where the blind victim was sitting on a staircase. Oyco confronted Macabibi, stating, “Esmundo it is good you are here. It is your hour.” When Macabibi pleaded for an amicable settlement, Oyco called him a fool and a blind man and immediately struck him on the forehead with a bolo, causing fatal injuries. Eyewitnesses Carmelita Bacaro and Florenia Abenido testified to these events. After the attack, Oyco fled but later surrendered himself and the weapon to barrio vice-lieutenant Restituto Bibaoco, who turned him over to authorities. The motive was a prior business misunderstanding. The defense’s alternative theory—that the fatal blow was delivered by the victim’s half-brother, Cesar Bacaro, during an altercation with Oyco—was discredited by the trial court as incredible.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
2. Whether the lower court erred in taking into account the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the judgment. It upheld the conviction for murder but found that the killing was qualified by treachery, as the victim was unarmed and totally blind, eliminating any risk to the assailant from defense by the victim. However, the Court held that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven, as it was not clearly shown that the accused clung to the idea of killing for a period long enough to reflect on the consequences. The Court found that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender (under Article 13, No. 7 of the Revised Penal Code) was present and should have been considered by the lower court. With this mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance to offset it, the penalty for murder (reclusion temporal maximum to death) should be imposed in its minimum period (reclusion temporal maximum). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court sentenced Oyco to an indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with accessory penalties. The indemnity of P6,000 to the heirs was affirmed. No costs were imposed for the appeal.