G.R. No. L-31900, August 6, 1979
The People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Bautista y Aquino, Leonardo Macapagal y Ruiz, and Rolando Rebutar y Gonzales. Rolando Rebutar y Gonzales, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the night of September 19, 1969, Crisanto Barredo was watching television inside a house in Tondo, Manila, with his friend Abelardo Liwanag. Suddenly, four men—appellant Rolando Rebutar (“Bansoy”), Juanito Bautista, Leonardo Macapagal, and Reynaldo Ebes (“Boy Suman”)—entered the room. All were armed. Rebutar, holding a revolver, ordered the occupants not to move. He then held Barredo from behind by the neck. As the victim struggled, Rebutar clubbed him with the gun’s butt. Macapagal then grabbed Barredo, and Ebes proceeded to stab him. Bautista hacked the fallen victim with a jungle bolo. Liwanag, who fled upstairs, later saw the assailants collectively attacking Barredo. The victim, suffering multiple fatal hacking and stab wounds, was later found and died from hemorrhage and shock.

ISSUE

The core issue for automatic review is whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant Rolando Rebutar of Murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, warranting the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder qualified by treachery but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua, finding evident premeditation not proven. The legal logic rests on two key principles: conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The concerted actions of the four armed men—Rebutar initiating the assault by holding and clubbing the victim, Macapagal helping to subdue him, and Ebes and Bautista inflicting the fatal wounds—demonstrated a unity of purpose to kill. Conspiracy being established, Rebutar is equally liable for all acts of his co-conspirators, regardless of which one inflicted the fatal blow. Treachery (alevosia) was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the unarmed victim no opportunity to defend himself. The victim was first restrained and stunned before the fatal wounds were delivered, ensuring the execution of the attack without risk to the assailants. However, the Court found evident premeditation not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The record lacked clear evidence showing when and how the plan to kill was conceived, or that the appellant had sufficient time to coolly reflect upon the crime. This aggravating circumstance requires proof as clear as the crime itself, which was absent. Consequently, with treachery as the sole qualifying circumstance and no modifying circumstances present, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The judgment was modified accordingly.