People v. Bado
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 30, 1975, at about 8:00 p.m., the accused, Priscillano Bado, was at a roadside in Barangay De la Paz, Pana-on, Misamis Occidental, engaged in a drinking spree with companions. During the spree, Bado became angry when he learned that Eduardo Mapiot took the last bottle of Pepsi-Cola. Candro Clavecilla suggested that Bado go home with him, which Bado agreed to. Later, Bado and Candro decided to go to the seashore to buy fish, with Bado bringing his hunting knife. On their way back, they saw a person walking with a lighted flashlight. Candro was ahead of Bado. As the person passed Candro, Bado embraced the person with his left hand and stabbed him with his hunting knife in his right hand on the left side of his body. The victim was identified as Felix Sumile, a fisherman. Both Bado and Candro fled. Porfirio and Eduardo Mapiot found Sumile's body on the road with the flashlight still in his hand and reported the incident. Dr. Estrelita de los Santos examined the body and found a stab wound on the anterior border of the 7th left rib and midsternal line, which traversed the skin, muscles, diaphragm, lungs, and heart. Dr. Alfonso R. Apduhan opined that the cause of death was internal hemorrhage from the wound, which could have been inflicted by a sharp bladed instrument like a hunting knife. The appellant, Bado, was a recidivist, having been previously convicted of slight physical injuries. Procedural History: The appellant, Priscillano Bado, was convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental in Criminal Case No. 307. The trial court sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Felix Sumile. The accused appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Appeal: In his appeal, Bado claimed that Candro Clavecilla, his companion, was the actual killer of Felix Sumile. He further argued that even if he were responsible, the killing was not attended by treachery, thus it should not be classified as murder. The People of the Philippines, while insisting Bado was the killer, conceded that the crime committed was homicide, not murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of Felix Sumile was attended by treachery, qualifying the offense to murder. Whether the aggravating circumstance of recidivism is offset by the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness, and the resulting penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court. It found the appellant guilty of homicide, not murder, and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The appellant was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the killing of Felix Sumile was homicide, not murder, because the element of treachery (alevosia) was not sufficiently proven. While the attack was sudden and unexpected, there was no showing that the mode of attack was consciously adopted by the accused to insure or facilitate the commission of the crime. The Court noted that the crime appeared to be the result of a casual encounter, giving the appellant no time to reflect on the method of execution. The Court agreed with both the appellant and the appellee that treachery was absent. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the accused was guilty of homicide. The Court acknowledged that the accused was a proven recidivist, which is an aggravating circumstance. However, this was offset by the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness, which did not appear to be habitual. Therefore, the Court applied Article 64, No. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. However, since the crime was reclassified to homicide, the penalty was adjusted accordingly, and the aggravating circumstance of recidivism was considered in conjunction with the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide, holding that while the attack was sudden and unexpected, there was no sufficient showing that the mode of attack was consciously adopted to insure or facilitate the commission of the crime, thus negating the presence of treachery (alevosia). The Court also applied the rule that the aggravating circumstance of recidivism is offset by the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness, provided it is not habitual.