G.R. No. L-12275; November 29, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL and ACASIO RUBINIAL, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Teotimo and Acasio Rubinial were charged with murder for the killing of Inocencio Davila. During a benefit dance at Francisco Climaco’s house on June 29, 1956, Teotimo was confronted by Davila for dancing without a paid ticket. Davila called Teotimo a “garboso person.” Later, Teotimo told his brother Acasio about the incident and expressed his intent to seek vengeance. After the dance, the two brothers went up to the Climaco house. Teotimo had an open knife. Acasio, armed with a small bolo, approached Davila, who was seated eating with his back turned, embraced him with his left hand, and stabbed him in the left breast. As Davila stood up and ran towards the kitchen, Teotimo pursued him, stabbed him in the back, and kicked him, causing Davila to fall from the kitchen door to the ground, where he died. Eyewitnesses Eladio Climaco and Juan Corvera testified to these events. The autopsy by Dr. Valerio A. Montesclaros confirmed two stab wounds from different sharp weapons. Teotimo claimed self-defense, stating Davila boxed him first and that he acted alone, and that he surrendered voluntarily. Acasio claimed he was not present. The trial court convicted both of murder. It appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender for Teotimo, sentencing him to 18 years of reclusion temporal, and sentenced Acasio to reclusion perpetua. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court due to the life sentence imposed on Acasio.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder and properly appreciated the circumstances attendant to the crime, including the alleged mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The evidence, including the credible testimonies of eyewitnesses and the medical findings, conclusively established that both appellants conspired to attack and kill Davila with treachery (alevosia), as the victim was seated and eating with his back turned when assaulted. The Court found no merit in the appellants’ challenges to the witnesses’ credibility. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court erred in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender for Teotimo, as the evidence showed he was arrested in his boarding house and only then claimed he was about to surrender, which does not constitute voluntary surrender in law. With the qualifying circumstance of treachery and no mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty for both is reclusion perpetua. Accordingly, the penalty for Teotimo Rubinial was modified to reclusion perpetua. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, including the joint and several indemnity to the heirs.