THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ELIZER BEDUYA AND RIC BEDUYA, APPELLANTS.

People versus Beduya

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted two brothers, Elizer Beduya and Ric Beduya, for the killing of Dominador Acope, Senior, on the night of May 6 to 7, 2002, in Pana-on, Misamis Occidental. The Information charged murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength, alleging that the brothers conspired, boxed the victim, and then stabbed him with a knife in the left hypochondriac area, causing his death. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee should hold on to. First, it is a clean teaching case on when abuse of superior strength qualifies a killing to murder, and when it does not. Second, it shows how the Supreme Court corrects a lower court's award of damages when the prosecution offers no receipts at all.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch 12, tried the brothers after each entered a plea of not guilty. The trial court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to pay the heirs death indemnity, funeral expenses, medical expenses, and lost earnings. The case was first forwarded to the Supreme Court on automatic review, but the Court referred it to the Court of Appeals in accordance with its ruling in People versus Mateo. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision with the modification of increasing the award for loss of earning capacity. The brothers then sought final review by the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the finding of abuse of superior strength. During the pendency of the appeal, Ric died, and the Court dismissed the appeal as to him; judgment was rendered only as to Elizer.

Facts

Late in the evening of May 6, 2002, Roy Bughao was walking home from a birthday celebration, carrying a torch, when Elizer and Ric Beduya suddenly appeared. Ric went around him while Elizer pointed a knife. Bughao swung his torch, shouted at them, and ran to the yard of the victim, Dominador Acope, Senior, where he hid in a dark area.

Past midnight, the victim and his son were roused from sleep by a voice from the road. The victim went outside and found Bughao, who said that Elizer had pointed a knife at him. When the Beduya brothers entered the yard, Bughao hid. From hiding, he saw the brothers approach the victim after the victim advised them to go home because it was already late. They did not heed the advice. Ric slapped the victim, and Elizer stabbed him. The victim retaliated by striking them with a piece of wood. The brothers ran away, one of them stumbling on firewood and a clothesline.

The victim's son sought help from an uncle, and the barangay captain came. The victim told the barangay captain that he would die because of the attack, that Ric had boxed him, and that Elizer had stabbed him. He was taken to a hospital in Ozamis City, where he gave a sworn statement. He died the next day from septic and hypovolemic shock secondary to the stab wound. Elizer's defense was self-defense: he claimed he was attacked by the victim and Bughao and struck out randomly with the knife he carried for slicing fish. Ric claimed he was asleep at home.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite the alleged inconsistencies.
• Whether or not the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the killing.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes murder, and its first paragraph lists abuse of superior strength among the qualifying circumstances:

Article 248. Murder. 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 perpetua, 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 provision is the hinge of the case: if abuse of superior strength is present, the killing is murder; if it is absent, the killing is only homicide.

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law governs the penalty once the crime is reduced to homicide:

Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

This provision fixes the minimum and maximum terms of the sentence the Court ultimately imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies were too trivial to affect credibility. The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are not disturbed absent a showing of serious error or irregularity, and here there was none. The Court also held that Bughao's failure to bring the victim to the hospital or report the incident at once did not destroy his credibility, because there is no standard of behavior for a person who witnesses a shocking or gruesome event. The victim's dying declaration and sworn statement, taken with the eyewitness testimony, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that abuse of superior strength was not present. The Court defined the circumstance in this way:

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.

The Court stressed that the fact that two persons attacked the victim does not per se establish abuse of superior strength, absent proof of their relative strength. The evidence must show that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or had the deliberate intent to use it. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of the circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. Here the prosecution offered no proof of disparity in age, size, or strength, and the victim was able to seize a piece of wood and strike back at Elizer. The encounter was unplanned: the brothers were pursuing Bughao when the victim advised them to go home. There was no conscious attempt to use any advantage. What was shown was intent to kill, so the guilt of Elizer was limited to homicide.

On the second issue, having established homicide, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal, and with no modifying circumstances the penalty is fixed in its medium period. The Court imposed an indeterminate term of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. On damages, the Court deleted the awards of actual damages for funeral and medical expenses because no receipts supported them, and instead awarded temperate damages of 25,000 pesos. It awarded 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and recomputed the loss of earning capacity using the life expectancy formula, arriving at 408,006 pesos.

Doctrine

Abuse of superior strength qualifies a killing to murder only when there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, and the aggressor purposely selects or takes advantage of that superiority in committing the crime. Mere superiority in numbers is not enough. The prosecution must prove a disparity in age, size, and strength, and a deliberate intent to use the advantage. Where the evidence shows an unplanned encounter and a victim who was able to fight back, the circumstance is absent and the crime is only homicide. Actual damages require competent proof, such as receipts; where expenses are clearly incurred but unproven in amount, temperate damages may be awarded. Civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded as a matter of course upon proof of the death of the victim.

Disposition

The Court modified the appealed decision: Elizer Beduya was held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, sentenced to an indeterminate prison term, and ordered to pay the victim's heirs 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, 25,000 pesos as temperate damages, and 408,006 pesos as indemnity for loss of earning capacity; the appeal as to Ric Beduya was dismissed because of his death.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the presence of two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength. Examiners use this case to test whether a student can distinguish a qualifying circumstance that must be proven from a mere numerical advantage that the law does not presume.