G.R. No. L-5114

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BARTOLOME ARREGLADO, defendant-appellant.

August 5, 1909

FACTS:

On October 12, 1908, Bartolome Arreglado (Arreglado) and Juan Buybuy (Buybuy) attempted to lure Felipe Malihan (Malihan) out of his house under the false pretext of an order from the barrio lieutenant for patrol duty. They revealed their intent to kill Malihan to Claudio de Ocampo, whom they used to summon Malihan. Ocampo warned Malihan, who returned home.

On the following night, October 13, 1908, Arreglado again called Malihan from his house, using the same false pretext. Malihan complied and followed Arreglado. Shortly thereafter, Malihan’s wife, Tomasa Arpon, heard her husband cry out, “Bartolo, you are not a man, you have betrayed me.” When Arpon went to investigate, she was met by Arreglado, who confessed he had killed her husband. Arreglado threatened to kill her if she reported the matter and, along with Buybuy, kept watch over her all night.

On October 15, Arpon managed to escape and reported the murder to the authorities. Arreglado was arrested and pointed out the burial site of Malihan. The body was exhumed on October 20, revealing labial wounds (cut lips), a wound in the right ear region, and a contusion in the right temple, causing cerebral hemorrhage and death, inflicted with an iron bar.

The provincial fiscal filed a complaint for murder against Arreglado (with a separate complaint against Buybuy). The trial court sentenced Arreglado to the death penalty, P1,000 indemnity to the heirs, and costs. The case was forwarded to the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUE:

Is Bartolome Arreglado guilty of murder, and is the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court appropriate given the attendant circumstances?

RULING:

Yes, Bartolome Arreglado is guilty of premeditated murder, and the death penalty is appropriate.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The evidence conclusively established Arreglado’s guilt as a co-author of Malihan’s murder. The crime was clearly premeditated, as shown by the prior planning, the digging of a grave, the repeated attempts using deceit to lure the victim, and the ambush.

The Court found the following aggravating circumstances:

1. Treachery (Alevosía): The victim was lured out by deceit, was unprepared, and was suddenly attacked from behind by two armed men, rendering defense impossible.
2. Nocturnity: The darkness and silence of the night were purposely chosen to facilitate the crime and ensure impunity.
3. Abuse of Superiority: (Although considered included in treachery, it was noted that two armed men attacked the victim).
4. Cruelty (Ensañamiento): The accused deliberately increased the enormity of the crime by inflicting unnecessary suffering, such as cutting the victim’s upper and lower lips, which was not essential to cause death.

No mitigating circumstances were found to offset these aggravating ones. The Court found the commission of the crime to be characterized by “especial malice, cruelty, and the greatest perversity.”

Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence for Bartolome Arreglado, requiring him to pay, jointly and severally with Juan Buybuy, an indemnity of P1,000 to the widow and heirs of the deceased, with costs, and to suffer the accessory penalties of Article 53 of the Penal Code.