G.R. No. L-32702 August 6, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAVID ABEJUELA, ET AL., defendants, RAMON ABEJUELA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of November 6, 1968, a benefit dance was held in Sinabuagan, Valencia, Bukidnon. Blas Pacete, a rural policeman, was present to maintain peace. During an intermission, Pacete left the hall and, while urinating near a tree, saw a carabao tethered there by Angel Agbayani, who arrived with Ramon Abejuela. Pacete asked for the carabao to be moved, prompting David Abejuela to intervene, claiming ownership. An argument ensued, with David pulling Pacete. At this juncture, Ramon Abejuela, from behind, shot Pacete in the left leg with a “paltik” pistol. David then also fired at Pacete but missed as the victim rolled away. In the ensuing chaos, another individual was shot. Pacete was treated but died on December 6, 1968, from shock and hemorrhage due to the gunshot wound and compound fracture.
An information for Murder was filed against David and Ramon Abejuela, alleging conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and recidivism. The trial court convicted both, sentencing Ramon to death and David to life imprisonment. David did not appeal. Ramon appealed, arguing the evidence did not establish murder, particularly the intent to kill, as his shot was directed at the victim’s leg, not a vital part.

ISSUE

Whether the accused Ramon Abejuela is guilty of Murder, considering his claim of lack of intent to kill and the nature of the attack.

RULING

Yes, Ramon Abejuela is guilty of Murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The legal logic centers on the application of treachery (alevosia) as a qualifying circumstance and the principle of consequential intent. The Court found that the attack was treacherous because Ramon shot the victim from behind while the latter was arguing with David, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. This manner of execution qualifies the killing as Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Regarding intent, the Court acknowledged that Ramon may not have intended to kill, as the shot was aimed at the leg. However, under criminal law, a person is responsible for the consequences of their unlawful act. The lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong is merely a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal Code, not a negation of the crime. This mitigating circumstance offset the aggravating circumstance of recidivism found by the trial court. Consequently, with no net aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The trial court’s error was in not appreciating this mitigating circumstance, which warranted the penalty modification. The decision was thus affirmed with this modification.