G.R. No. L-38297 October 23, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO CAPALAC, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On September 20, 1970, at a cockpit in Iligan City, Jimmy Magaso stabbed Moises Capalac. Moises’s brothers, appellant Mario Capalac and Jesus Capalac, pursued Magaso. Magaso attempted to surrender by raising his hands after failing to escape. Appellant Mario, a police officer, pistol-whipped Magaso on the head and face. After Magaso fell to the ground, Jesus stabbed him multiple times in the chest, causing his death. Appellant Mario was convicted of murder by the trial court, which found the crime attended by treachery, evident premeditation, and the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position. The court imposed the death penalty, leading to this automatic review.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether conspiracy existed between Mario and Jesus Capalac; (2) whether the killing was qualified by treachery; (3) whether the aggravating circumstances were correctly appreciated; and (4) whether any mitigating circumstance should be considered.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. Conspiracy was duly established by the “concurrence of wills” and “unity of action and purpose” in avenging their brother. The brothers acted in concert with a common objective, satisfying the requirement of tacit coordination. Treachery (alevosia) was correctly appreciated because Magaso, with his hands raised in surrender, was in a helpless and defenseless position when attacked, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the aggressors.
However, the Court found that the aggravating circumstances were not proven. Evident premeditation requires cool and serene reflection, which was absent as the attack was a spontaneous, heated response to the prior stabbing of their brother. The circumstance of taking advantage of official position was not sufficiently established, and the means employed did not deliberately add ignominy beyond the natural effects of the act. Conversely, the Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense under Article 13(5) of the Revised Penal Code, as the appellants acted under the impulse of a legitimate grievance from the wounding of their brother.
Consequently, with treachery as a qualifying circumstance and the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication offsetting the generic aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty was reduced. Appellant Mario Capalac was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor minimum to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal maximum.