GR L 60039; (March, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-60039-40 March 20, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO MABANSAG, VEDASTO MABANSAG, and TRANQUILINO ABEJUELA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Two criminal cases arose from incidents on April 25, 1980, in San Sebastian, Samar. In Criminal Case No. 1855, Vedasto Mabansag was charged with direct assault upon Barangay Captain Zoilo Mendaño. The prosecution alleged that during a barangay dance, Vedasto, while challenging people to a fight and armed with a bolo, was pacified by Mendaño. Vedasto allegedly attempted to stab Mendaño but missed, and his bolo was wrested away. In Criminal Case No. 1856, Pedro Mabansag, Vedasto Mabansag, and Tranquilino Abejuela, along with others at large, were charged with the murder of Arcadio Mendaño. The prosecution’s narrative stated that after the initial incident, Vedasto asked Arcadio to accompany him. Pedro then emerged and struck at Arcadio with wood, hitting Vedasto instead. Subsequently, Tranquilino Abejuela, Avelino Abejuela, and Vicente Mabansag arrived armed with bolos. Together with Pedro and Vedasto, they chased Arcadio. Tranquilino, Avelino, and Vicente inflicted fatal stab wounds on Arcadio, causing his death.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether Vedasto Mabansag’s guilt for direct assault was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the appellants were guilty of murder or a lesser offense for the killing of Arcadio Mendaño.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. In Criminal Case No. 1855, the Court acquitted Vedasto Mabansag of direct assault. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It gave credence to Vedasto’s testimony that he voluntarily surrendered his bolo to the barangay captain, finding this more consistent with human experience than the claim of an attempted stabbing and a struggle. The Court noted the improbability of the barangay captain allowing Vedasto to go free after an assault, especially when he allegedly knew Vedasto possessed another weapon. This created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.
In Criminal Case No. 1856, the Court found the appellants guilty only of Homicide, not Murder. The prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The attack was not shown to be deliberate, sudden, and without warning, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The initial chase and the circumstances did not establish that the mode of attack was consciously adopted to ensure the killing without risk to the assailants. Consequently, the crime was homicide. The Court sentenced each appellant to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of Arcadio Mendaño solidarily.