G.R. No. L-18518; January 31, 1963
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Federico Tagaro, alias Federico Lanuza, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Federico Tagaro, was charged with double murder for the killings of Agapito Sarmiento and Bienvenido Sarmiento. The incident occurred during a baptismal party. According to prosecution eyewitness Antonio Aguedo, the accused’s brother, Pablo Tagaro, initially hacked his father-in-law, Agapito Sarmiento, from behind. Agapito, wounded, was assisted upstairs. The accused then wrestled the bolo from his brother and proceeded to hack Bienvenido Sarmiento from behind at the stairs. Subsequently, the accused also attacked the already wounded Agapito, who was inside the house. Medical certificates detailed multiple fatal wounds on both victims, with the physician noting several injuries could have been inflicted from behind or while the victim was lying down.
The defense presented a different narrative. The accused testified that after disarming his brother to prevent further violence, he and Pablo left the party. Pablo later returned alone, and when the accused followed, he found Pablo and Fulgencio Sarmiento in a bolo duel, resulting in Pablo’s death. The accused claimed he acted in defense of his brother. The trial court convicted Tagaro of double murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, with indemnities.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of double murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from double murder to double homicide. The Court upheld the trial court’s factual findings on credibility, finding no reason to overturn them. However, it rejected the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information. The evidence did not establish evident premeditation, as the killings arose suddenly from a quarrel. Treachery (alevosia) was also not present. Jurisprudence requires that for treachery to exist, the aggressor must have consciously adopted a mode of attack to facilitate the crime without risk. Here, the slayings were immediately preceded by an altercation, negating any deliberate, pre-planned method of execution aimed at eliminating risk to the assailant.
The Court noted that the killing could have been qualified by abuse of superior strength, but this circumstance was not alleged in the information. Consequently, the crimes were properly classified as homicide. The Court found the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as the accused used a bolo against unarmed victims. Appellant was thus found guilty of two counts of homicide, aggravated by abuse of superior strength. The penalty for each offense was set at an indeterminate sentence of twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The indemnities and costs imposed by the lower court were affirmed.