People v. Bandoquillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A dance was held in honor of a Barrio Captain. During the event, an altercation occurred between Franco Divinagracia and Leoncio Saguban regarding music selection. Later, Franco struck Leoncio with a bottle. The accused-appellant, Alfredo Bandoquillo, a barrio police officer, warned Leoncio that if he sent the stereophonic record-player home, "something will happen." Leoncio and his family decided to go home. As they were walking home, Bandoquillo and a group of others pursued them. Leoncio emerged from his hiding place to go to his father, who was being assaulted by Bandoquillo. Bandoquillo then stabbed Leoncio in the back. Leoncio was brought to the hospital but died the following morning due to adrenal failure caused by the stab wound. Procedural History: The accused-appellant was charged with murder, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, in the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental. He pleaded innocent. After trial, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with accessory penalties, and to pay civil indemnity. The defense claimed that Ernesto Raaging, not Bandoquillo, was the killer. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of Leoncio Saguban was qualified by treachery. Whether the killing was attended by evident premeditation. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of murder or homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It found the accused-appellant guilty of homicide, not murder, and sentenced him to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the killing was qualified by treachery: The Court ruled that treachery could not be assumed and must be proven as fully as the crime itself. In this case, the deceased and his brother were warned by their sister that the appellant was after them, prompting them to flee and hide. Leoncio emerged from hiding to aid his father, who was being assaulted by the appellant. The Court held that treachery could not be assumed because Leoncio, in going to his father's aid, was not oblivious to the fact that he was exposing himself to attack from the appellant. The suddenness of the attack alone does not establish treachery. On whether the killing was attended by evident premeditation: The Court found that the evidence failed to indicate the presence of evident premeditation. The utterance of threats prior to the commission of the crime, without a sufficient period of time for the culprit to plan or prepare for its execution, does not constitute evident premeditation. The threats made by the appellant were not shown to have been preceded by a period of time sufficient for planning. On whether the accused-appellant is guilty of murder or homicide: The Court concluded that the proofs did not warrant affirming the conviction for murder. There was no clear or acceptable evidence of any circumstance that would qualify the killing to murder. Therefore, the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder. The appellant was found guilty only of homicide, committed without any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The appropriate penalty for homicide without aggravating or mitigating circumstances is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Intermediate Sentence Law, the penalty was adjusted.
Main Doctrine
The qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be assumed and must be proven as fully as the crime itself. The utterance of threats prior to the commission of the crime, absent a supervention of an appreciable period of time between their making and the commission of the offense sufficient to afford the culprit opportunity to either plan or prepare for its execution, does not constitute evident premeditation. Absent clear evidence of any circumstance qualifying the killing to murder, the accused is guilty only of homicide.