G.R. No. L-50300 October 26, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO YAP and HERMINIO AMAR, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of March 11, 1976, after drinking, appellants Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar proceeded to the house of Teofilo Fernandez, challenging him to come out. Seeing them armed with a bolo and a gun, Fernandez refused. The appellants then went to the house of Antonio Alonsabe. Yap, threatening to kill him, forced Alonsabe to accompany them to the house of his father-in-law, Felipe Santiago. Arriving at midnight, Alonsabe called for Santiago. When Santiago appeared, Yap identified himself and accused Santiago of wrongdoing against his brother. As Santiago turned to re-enter his house, Yap hacked him on the back with a bolo. Amar simultaneously cocked his gun and pointed it at Alonsabe, who fled. Yap continued hacking Santiago to death inside his own home.
The victim’s wife witnessed the attack and summoned help. The police subsequently arrived, conducted an investigation, and prepared sketches and photographs showing the deceased sustained multiple hacked wounds. Appellants were arrested on March 16 and 17, 1976. After waiving their rights with counsel, they voluntarily executed extrajudicial confessions. An Information for Murder was filed, alleging conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation.

ISSUE

Whether the accused are guilty of the crime of Murder, and if the qualifying and aggravating circumstances were correctly appreciated.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty. The Court found conspiracy was conclusively established. Appellants acted in concert from the initial threat at Fernandez’s house, to coercing Alonsabe, and finally to the attack on Santiago. Yap directly perpetrated the hacking, while Amar stood guard, cocked his gun to prevent Alonsabe from rendering aid, and ensured the crime’s completion. Their coordinated actions demonstrated a unity of purpose and design.
The killing was qualified by evident premeditation. The sequence of events—the prior confrontation at Fernandez’s house, the forced accompaniment of Alonsabe, and the deliberate journey to the victim’s house—revealed a clear plan and persistence in its execution. Treachery was also present and properly appreciated, as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. This circumstance absorbed the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was correctly applied since the attack was perpetrated in the victim’s home without provocation. Craft was also present, as Yap used Alonsabe to lure the victim out. The crime is Murder qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by treachery, dwelling, and craft. For lack of the necessary votes, the death penalty was commuted. The Court modified the judgment, sentencing each appellant to reclusion perpetua.