G.R. No. L-19142 March 31, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGRECIO LUMAYAG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of April 12, 1959, in Gumagamot, Lala, Lanao del Norte, Pedro Lumayag and his wife Luzviminda Pampilo heard a shout for help from Jose Pampilo. They rushed to the scene, directed a flashlight, and saw the appellant, Agrecio Lumayag, wearing a red shirt and maong pants, straddling over a person on the road with his hands around the person’s neck. Agrecio then fled. The couple found Jose Pampilo dead, with injuries to his nape and bruises on his face. The police later found Agrecio hiding in a shack, armed with a bolo and a cane. When questioned, Agrecio initially stated he would answer at the municipal building but later confessed to killing Jose Pampilo with a cane called “bahi,” indicating where he threw it, and the cane was recovered. The municipal health officer’s postmortem revealed a skull fracture and contused wounds. Agrecio was charged with murder. At trial, he presented an alibi, claiming he was in Tangub from the afternoon of April 12 until the morning of April 14, being treated by a quack doctor. The trial court found him guilty of murder, qualifying the killing with treachery and nocturnity, and considering the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a wrong due to a prior incident where the deceased had boxed the appellant.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Agrecio Lumayag of murder, specifically in finding that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and nocturnity were present.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It upheld the conviction but found the crime to be homicide, not murder. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Pedro Lumayag and Luzviminda Pampilo overcame the appellant’s alibi. However, the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and nocturnity alleged in the information were not proven. There was no evidence showing how the attack commenced or that the appellant deliberately sought nighttime to facilitate the crime. Applying the doctrine in U.S. v. Bañagale, when the details surrounding the killing are unknown and no qualifying circumstances are conclusively shown, the crime is homicide. The Court also held that the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a wrong was improperly appreciated, as approximately nine months had passed between the prior boxing incident and the killing, making it not an immediate vindication. The appellant was found guilty of homicide without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, with an indemnity of P6,000 to the heirs of the deceased.