THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO AREVALO, BERNARDO AREVALO, ERNITO AREVALO, AND ROCEVAL AREVALO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Arevalo

The Case

This is People versus Arevalo, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. Four brothers, Reynaldo, Bernardo, Ernito, and Roceval, all surnamed Arevalo, were charged with the killing of Abelardo Gonzales on a trail in Pilar, Capiz, on the evening of March 3, 1971. One brother admitted striking the fatal blows but claimed self-defense; the other three relied on alibi. The case matters to a reviewee because it shows how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of eyewitnesses, how conspiracy is inferred from a concerted, simultaneous attack, and how treachery qualifies a killing to murder while absorbing the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength.

Procedural History

The four accused were charged with murder in an information filed with the Court of First Instance of Capiz, Branch 1. Upon arraignment, all four, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on June 3, 1974, finding all four guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of 12,000 pesos, and to pay one fourth of the costs each. The accused appealed the judgment directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

At about seven o'clock in the evening of March 3, 1971, Abelardo Gonzales was walking home on a trail at sitio Pinamolotan, barrio San Fernando, Pilar, Capiz. He carried his three year old son Allan, while his fourteen year old son Chito walked beside him. They had come from the store of Isias Agesta, where they exchanged vinegar for empty bottles.

Suddenly Reynaldo Arevalo appeared from the wayside and struck the victim from behind with a bolo. The victim fell forward, and the child Allan was thrown from him. Ernito Arevalo and Bernardo Arevalo appeared at the same moment and took turns striking the fallen victim. Chito took hold of his little brother and ran into the cane fields to hide. The fourth brother, Roceval Arevalo, then appeared and also struck the prostrate victim with his bolo. The four tried to run after the two boys but lost them among the sugarcane, and then fled. A bystander, Juanito Benjamin, who was watching his sugarcane from a cane car very near the scene, hid behind the car and saw the whole attack without being noticed. The post-mortem examination, conducted at nine thirty that same evening, showed numerous incise wounds on the head, neck, back, and forearm, and the cause of death was severe hemorrhage secondary to the multiple incise wounds.

The defense admitted the killing. Reynaldo claimed he acted in self-defense, saying the victim had given him wine, then demanded money, drew a homemade gun, and threatened to shoot him; he said he pushed the victim, boloed him, and grabbed the gun, which he claimed was later lost. He admitted a grudge, because three months earlier the victim had publicly accused him of stealing coconuts. The other three denied participation and relied on alibi, placing themselves at a fishpond, a hacienda, and the home of in-laws at the time of the killing.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the claim of self-defense put forward by Reynaldo Arevalo.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that Bernardo, Ernito, and Roceval Arevalo participated in the killing.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery was established to raise the killing to murder.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused were convicted, provides:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This is the provision the trial court applied in convicting the four accused of murder, and the Supreme Court upheld its application.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the claim of self-defense was very difficult to believe, unsupported as it was by any evidence other than Reynaldo's own testimony and contradicted by the eyewitnesses Juanito Benjamin and Chito Gonzales. Reynaldo could not produce the gun he claimed to have taken from the victim, and his explanation that it was lost when he ran away hardly deserved credence. Neither could he explain why, if he had truly acted in self-defense, he did not report the matter at once to the barrio captain or the police. The Court also noted that Reynaldo himself admitted a grudge against the victim, which supplied the motive for the sudden attack.

On the second issue, the Court found no compelling reason to disturb the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses. The trial court had given much credence to Juanito Benjamin, who had no reason to testify falsely, and to Chito Gonzales, who testified in a simple and straightforward manner. The Court held that conspiracy among the accused was established by the ambush they perpetrated and the concerted, simultaneous attack they made, the four attackers suddenly coming out of the sugar plantation with great stealth and cunning on a moonlight night. On the argument that Roceval was not named in Chito's sworn statement, the Court explained that Roceval came to the scene and struck the fallen victim only after Chito had fled with his younger brother, so Chito could not have seen him.

On the third issue, the Court held that the evidence for the prosecution conclusively established the qualifying circumstance of treachery, which qualified the killing to murder. The Court further held that this qualifying circumstance absorbs the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength.

On the fourth issue, there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance in the commission of the crime, the Court held that the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

First, self-defense must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and it cannot stand against the positive testimony of eyewitnesses where the accused fails to produce the weapon he claims to have wrested from his supposed aggressor and fails to report the incident promptly to the authorities.

Second, conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted and simultaneous attack of several assailants who suddenly emerge from hiding and take turns striking a fallen victim; the act of one is the act of all.

Third, treachery qualifies a killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and where treachery is present it absorbs the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength.

Fourth, where there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in its entirety, upholding the conviction of all four accused for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that treachery qualifies the killing to murder and absorbs nighttime and abuse of superior strength. Examiners like to use this case to test conspiracy inferred from a concerted simultaneous attack and the requisites of self-defense when the accused cannot produce the weapon or explain his failure to report.