G.R. No. 139530 ; February 27, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PEPE BAUTISTA y SABADO, appellant.

FACTS

On the night of February 3, 1993, appellant Pepe Bautista, the victim Rodolfo Bacoling, and four others were engaged in a drinking session at a house in Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya. The group gradually dispersed, leaving only appellant and the victim, who was armed with a bolo. A neighbor later testified to seeing appellant chasing the victim. Later that night, appellant, accompanied by his brother, went to the house of another drinking companion, Renato Hilario, confessed to the killing, and showed a blood-stained bolo and shirt. The following morning, appellant also confessed to another companion, James Buyagan. The victim’s body, bearing multiple hacking wounds, was recovered.
Appellant, testifying as the sole witness for the defense, claimed self-defense. He alleged that after their companions left, the victim badmouthed him, unsheathed his bolo, and raised it. Appellant claimed he embraced the victim, disarmed him, and grabbed the bolo. The victim then hurled a stone, which missed. As appellant fled, the victim chased him, threatening to kill him. Appellant stated that when the victim caught up, he confronted and struck him with the victim’s own bolo.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery, or if the crime committed is Homicide, and whether the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, finding appellant guilty of Homicide instead of Murder. The Court held that treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witness only saw appellant chasing the victim but did not witness the actual attack. The medical findings of wounds on the victim’s head, face, neck, and fingers did not conclusively prove that the attack was from behind or that the victim was utterly defenseless. For treachery to qualify a killing, the means of execution must be deliberately adopted to ensure the victim’s inability to defend or retaliate. The evidence here was insufficient to establish this deliberate manner of attack.
Furthermore, the Court rejected appellant’s claim of self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation must concur. The Court found that any unlawful aggression by the victim ceased when appellant successfully disarmed him and was not hit by the hurled stone. At that point, appellant no longer faced a real danger to his life or limb. His act of subsequently striking the victim when the aggression had ended was not a valid act of defense.
Absent any qualifying circumstance, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity and actual damages were affirmed.