People v. Bardon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 6, 1980, at around 12:30 a.m., Francisco Roque, in a drunken state, caused a disturbance at the store of Menang Carten by tearing mosquito repellent and cigarettes. Menang Carten called her son-in-law, Roberto Bardon, to subdue Francisco Roque. Francisco Roque retreated but threatened to return. As Francisco Roque and his son, Riel, were walking home, a Ford Fiera driven by Roberto Bardon, with five or six companions, overtook them. Roberto Bardon, armed with an ax, and his companions, armed with a knife and stones, attacked Francisco Roque. Roberto Bardon struck Francisco Roque with an ax, a companion stabbed him, and others hit him with stones. Francisco Roque died instantaneously. Procedural History: Appellant Roberto Bardon was charged with Murder along with Ernesto Zapanta and Alfredo Indona. Only Roberto Bardon was apprehended. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Roberto Bardon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with accessory penalties, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Francisco Roque in the sum of P12,000.00. The court appreciated sufficient provocation and passion/obfuscation as mitigating circumstances, offset by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, abuse of superiority, and use of a motor vehicle. The Petition: Appellant Roberto Bardon appealed the decision, assigning errors concerning his conviction, the qualification of the crime as murder with treachery, the appreciation of aggravating circumstances (nighttime, abuse of superiority, use of a motor vehicle), and the imposed penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of killing Francisco Roque. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of Murder qualified by treachery, instead of simple Homicide. Whether the trial court erred in considering nighttime, abuse of superior strength, and the use of a motor vehicle as aggravating circumstances. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing the accused-appellant to the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of prision mayor in its proper period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Roberto Bardon for Murder but modified the penalty and indemnity. The Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and increased the indemnity to P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt and the credibility of Riel Roque's testimony: The Court found that the testimony of Riel Roque, the victim's ten-year-old son, established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Roberto Bardon was the one who hacked Francisco Roque with an ax on the latter's back. Despite appellant's contentions regarding inconsistencies in Riel's testimony, the Court deemed them trivial and unimportant. The Court emphasized that Riel could not be mistaken in his identification because they were neighbors, appellant was seen immediately before the incident, and the vehicle's headlights illuminated the crime scene. Furthermore, the prosecution presented no evidence of improper motive for Riel to falsely testify. The necropsy report corroborated Riel's testimony regarding the hacking wound on the victim's back. Cornelia Pila's testimony also supported the prosecution's narrative, stating that Menang Carten told appellant to strike the deceased. On the qualification of the crime as Murder with Treachery: The Court found that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the crime was Murder. The prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of Riel Roque, indicated that Francisco Roque was attacked suddenly and unexpectedly while walking home, without any opportunity to defend himself. The use of an ax by Bardon and the concerted attack by his companions, who were armed with a knife and stones, demonstrated the treacherous nature of the assault. The victim's concern for his son's safety further underscored his inability to defend himself. On the appreciation of aggravating circumstances: The Court ruled that nighttime and abuse of superior strength are inherent in treachery and cannot be appreciated separately. However, the aggravating circumstance of the use of a motor vehicle was correctly appreciated because the Ford Fiera played an important role in the accomplishment of the appellant's design, not only in pursuing the victim but also in facilitating their escape to avoid discovery. The Court noted that the trial court had already considered two mitigating circumstances (sufficient provocation and passion/obfuscation) which were offset by the aggravating circumstances. On the imposition of the correct penalty: With the abolition of the death penalty, the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. The Court considered one aggravating circumstance (use of a motor vehicle) and two mitigating circumstances (sufficient provocation and passion/obfuscation). The net effect was one mitigating circumstance. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed a penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The indemnity was increased from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellant by credible witnesses. Nighttime and abuse of superiority are inherent in treachery and cannot be appreciated separately. The use of a motor vehicle can be an aggravating circumstance if it played an important role in the accomplishment of the crime and in the escape of the perpetrators.