People v. Bacho
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case involves the murder of Felipe Openiano, Jr. on April 16, 1981. The prosecution alleged that Ruben Bacho, Raymundo Horca, Eduardo Paragato, Rogelio Muncada, and Brigido Escasinas conspired to attack and kill the victim. They were accused of using bolos, an iron pipe, a chair, and stones, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength. 2. Procedural History: The accused were charged with murder before the Court of First Instance of Northern Samar. Rogelio Muncada, a deaf-mute found to be mentally ill, died during the trial, and the case against him was dismissed. Ruben Bacho and Raymundo Horca offered to plead guilty to homicide, but the trial court denied this. After trial, the court found Ruben Bacho, Eduardo Paragato, and Raymundo Horca guilty of murder and sentenced them to death. Due to the death penalty, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for review. Following the commutation of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua under the 1987 Constitution, the surviving accused were asked to continue with their appeal, which they did, except for Raymundo Horca who also died in the interim. 3. The Petition: The accused-appellants, through their counsel de oficio, argued that the trial court erred in finding conspiracy and in qualifying the crime as murder with treachery and abuse of superior strength. The Solicitor General agreed with these contentions. The Supreme Court, however, found that the evidence supported the existence of conspiracy, inferring a common purpose from the accused ganging up on the victim and fleeing together. While the Court agreed that treachery was not present due to the lack of evidence on how the aggression began and the possibility of a casual encounter, it affirmed the presence of abuse of superior strength due to the number of assailants and the weapons used. Consequently, the Court modified the judgment, sentencing Ruben Bacho and Eduardo Paragato to reclusion perpetua and increasing the indemnity to P30,000.00.
Issue(s)
Whether conspiracy existed in the commission of the crime. Whether the crime committed was murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed with modification. Ruben Bacho and Eduardo Paragato were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay jointly and severally P30,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased. The case against Rogelio Muncada and Raymundo Horca was dismissed due to their deaths.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether conspiracy existed in the commission of the crime. The Supreme Court found no merit in the contention that no conspiracy existed. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly indicated a common purpose to assault and inflict harm upon the deceased, evidenced by their concerted execution of this purpose. The fact that the accused, who were all workers in the Pepsi Cola warehouse, ganged up on the deceased and took turns beating him, and then fled together, strongly suggests a common agreement to assault the victim. The Court reiterated that the use of a bolo by one accused while others used their fists does not negate conspiracy, as it is not a radical departure from their common intent to inflict serious injury. The Court cited People vs. Enriquez and United States vs. Patten to support the principle that conspirators are liable for the resulting death even if the specific means of inflicting injury were not initially contemplated, as long as there was a conspiracy to commit grave personal injury. On Issue 2: Whether the crime committed was murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength. The Court found that the commission of the offense was not attended by treachery. For treachery (alevosia) to be appreciated, the offender must have employed means or methods specifically intended to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself from the victim's defense. The prosecution's evidence did not establish the manner in which the aggression began or developed, and the encounter appeared to be casual, with no time for the accused to reflect on their method of execution. The mere fact that the victim sustained a stab wound at the back did not automatically indicate treachery, especially since there were other stab wounds in the front, and the stab wound at the back was inflicted last, causing the victim to fall. The Court cited People vs. Plaza and U.S. vs. Perdon in support of the requirement for clear evidence of deliberate means to insure execution without risk. However, the Court found that the felony was characterized by abuse of superiority in number. There were five (5) persons who attacked the unarmed victim, taking advantage of their combined strength, with one armed with a bolo, another with a lead pipe, and others with stones. This constituted abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance. Consequently, the crime committed was Murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength. Since there were no other mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty was reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
While conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted actions of the accused, treachery cannot be appreciated if the manner in which the aggression began and developed is not clearly established, especially in cases of casual encounters. Abuse of superior strength, however, can be a qualifying circumstance when multiple assailants take advantage of their combined strength against an unarmed victim.