People v. BatesAustria-Martinez, J.; March 28, 2003

I. Facts At about 2 PM of Nov. 28, 1995, Edgar Fuentes, Simon Fuentes and Jose Boholst went to Brgy.

Green Valley, Ormoc City to deliver copra. The 3 men headed back to their home barangay at about 5 PM.

While they were along a trail leading to Carlito Bates’ house, the latter suddenly emerged from the banana trees and aimed a gun at Jose, who was walking ahead of his companions. Jose and Carlito wrestled for the gun, which suddenly fired, hitting Carlito. Carlito fell down.

At that instant, Carlito’s brother Marcelo, and Marcelo’s son Marcelo Jr. emerged from the banana trees. The two Marcelos both carried bolos, which they used in attacking Jose. Jose fell to the ground but the father and son kept hacking. Marcelo then turned to Simon and Edgar and shouted “huwes de kutsilyo” at them. Simon and Edgar ran away.

The hacking incident was witnessed by Jose’s wife Concepcion, who was informed of the incident at about 5: 30 PM. The Boholsts lived less than 100 meters away from the crime scene.

The defense claims that Jose and his party entered Carlito’s house and dragged him out, which led to the incident.

Concepcion saw the father and son (but not Carlito) hacking Jose, who was lying face up. She pleaded for them to stop but they did not listen. She then fled in fear of the assailants.

Bates Jr. remained at large, while Marcelo Bates was arrested and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to 40 years reclusion perpetua.

II. Issues1. WON the TC erred in weighing the evidence against the defense and in favor of the prosecution-

<NO>2. WON treachery was proven- <NO>3. WON passion and obfuscation can be considered in Marcelo’s favor- <NO>

III. Ratio1. Marcelo cannot claim self-defense. Assuming that Jose was indeed guilty of unlawful aggression,

such ceased when Jose collapsed to the ground after Marcelo hacked him on the neck once. Marcelo admitted to seeing Jose lying down on the ground and hacking him. At that point there was no more unlawful aggression which will justify the infliction of additional knife blows upon Jose, who was already defenseless.

a. Trial court did not err in its appreciation of evidence. Trial courts are in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses. The fact that no powder burns were found on Jose or Carlito (meaning that they did not grapple for the gun) is not conclusive as this is belied by Marcelo himself. It was natural for Concepcion Boholst to not notice Carlito’s presence/absence when faced with the shocking scene of her spouse being hacked to death. Different people react differently to strange or startling experiences, and Concepcion’s reaction is perfectly normal. The inconsistencies between the testimonies of Edgar and Concepcion are merely minor in nature, and can be explained by the fact that they saw the crime in two different moments/stages of execution; i.e., Edgar had already left when Concepcion came.

2. Elements of treachery are: 1) employment of means of execution to ensure that the person attacked has no opportunity to defend or retaliate and 2) such means were deliberately or consciously adopted. Here there was no proof that Marcelo and Marcelo Jr. did use such means

of execution and that they deliberately did so. All the prosecution was able to prove on this point was that Marcelo and Jr. emerged from beside the path which was thickly planted with bananas on both sides. This is not enough to prove treachery.

3. Passion and obfuscation cannot be appreciated in Marcelo’s favor. To be considered mitigating, the passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness, revenge, anger, or resentment. Here Marcelo was infuriated upon seeing his brother being shot while grappling with Jose. Had Marcelo hacked Jose once after seeing Carlito being shot, and refrained from doing anything else after that one blow, he could have validly invoked passion & obfuscation. The fact that he did not, and even hacked Jose while the latter was already lying down on the ground clearly shows that Marcelo was acting out of anger and in revenge.

4. Other rulings:a. Civil indemnity for death is P50k; plus P25K temperate damages for burial expensesb. Penalty under ISLAW: 1 mitigating circumstance not offset by any aggravating

circumstance -> Maximum period shall be taken from the minimum of the prescribed penalty (reclusion temporal for homicide) while the minimum period shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor.

c. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty and should be imposed without specification of its duration.

IV. Disposition: Modified. Marcelo is guilty of homicide and is sentenced to 6 years and 1 day prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and 1 day reclusion temporal as maximum.