G.R. No. L-33841 October 31, 1984
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLAVIANO PUDA Y GARAPEA alias “FLAVIO PUDA”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Flaviano Puda, was charged with murder for the killing of Ching Tian Un on December 19, 1959, in Parañaque, Rizal. The information alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, along with several aggravating circumstances including dwelling, nighttime, unlawful entry, and the breaking of a wall or window. Upon arraignment, Puda initially pleaded guilty. The trial court, due to the gravity of the offense, required the prosecution to present evidence. The evidence established that in the early morning, Puda climbed the fence of the victim’s house, removed glass panes from a transom window to gain entry, and stabbed the sleeping victim twice with a dagger, causing his death. Physical evidence, including fingerprints, bloodstains, and paint on Puda’s rubber shoes, corroborated this method of entry.
During his testimony, Puda recanted his initial plea and confession, claiming he entered through an open door, was confronted by the awake victim, and acted in self-defense during a struggle. The trial court rejected this version, finding it physically improbable given the established evidence and the short timeframe. The court convicted Puda of murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, with aggravating circumstances, and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

The core issues for automatic review were: (1) whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, and (2) whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding of treachery. The victim was attacked while asleep, completely defenseless and unable to offer any resistance, which squarely satisfies the criterion of employing means that ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The Court found the appellant’s claim of a confrontation with an awake victim to be inconsistent with the physical evidence and logically implausible.
Regarding the penalty, the Court rejected the constitutional challenge that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment, citing established jurisprudence. However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. This reduction was based on equitable grounds, specifically the excessive delay in the review process. The records showed that the appellant had been detained on death row for approximately twenty-four years, with an eleven-year delay before the records were even transmitted for automatic review. Citing previous cases, the Court held that such prolonged incarceration under a death sentence warranted a reduction of the penalty. The indemnity to the victim’s heirs was also increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos. The case was referred to the Board of Pardons and Parole for a study on possible executive clemency.