PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO BAUTISTA Y MERCADO, JOSE BAUTISTA Y MERCADO, ISAIAS YAMBAO ALIAS “BIBILUGIN”, JOHN DOE, PETER DOE AND RICHARD DOE, ACCUS…

FELICIANO, J.:

In the evening of 4 September 1983, people congregated in and
milled around the Poblacion of Macabebe, Pampanga, enjoying and participating in
the festivities in progress in connection with the approaching town fiesta of
Macabebe on 10 September 1983.  A tumultuous affray broke out in the immediate
vicinity of the Enver Restaurant which was situated in the Poblacion of
Macabebe.  In the course of this tumultuous affray, Prospero Enriquez, Jr.
received a number of stab wounds from which he died the next day.  In the same
tumultuous commotion, Pablo Liangco also sustained knife wounds which, happily,
did not prove fatal.

On 21 September 1983, an Information was filed with
the Regional Trial Court in Macabebe, Pampanga, charging the accused with
murder, in the following terms:.

“That on or about the 4th day of September 1983, in the
Municipality of Macabebe, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused ROMEO BAUTISTA
y MERCADO, JOSE BAUTISTA y MERCADO, ISAIAS YAMBAO
alias “BIBILUGIN” (at large), JOHN DOE, PETER DOE and RICHARD
DOE whose true names and identities are not yet known, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, and armed with a knife,
with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack and wound therewith PROSPERO ENRIQUEZ, JR. in the different
parts of the body, inflicting upon him incised wound 1 cm. 6-7 intercostal
space, left parasternal area; penetrating wound right ventricle of the heart;
lacerated liver 3 cm. in length and 1 cm. deep middle lobe and other injuries,
with treachery and known premeditation, which directly caused the death of the
said Prospero Enriquez, Jr.

All contrary to law, and with the qualifying
circumstance of Alevosia, and the generic aggravating circumstances of
known premeditation, abuse of superior strength and night time purposely sought
to facilitate the commission of the offense.

All contrary to law.”^[1]

Isaias Yambao and the three unidentified accused were and
continue to be at large and have not to date been brought to trial.

After
arraignment and trial, the trial court rendered a decision on 3 September 1984
finding the two brothers, Romeo Bautista and Jose Bautista, guilty of the crime
of murder and sentenced both of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.  The dispositive portion of this decision reads as follows:

“The Court further sentences them jointly and severally to
indemnify the heirs of Prospero Enriquez, Jr. the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00), Philippine Currency for the death of said Prospero Enriquez, Jr.;
FORTY THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TEN PESOS AND 20/100 (P43,210.20), Philippine
Currency for actual damages incurred for burial and other expenses of the
deceased in accordance with customs and tradition; and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P500,000.00), Philippine  Currency for moral damages.  The Court further
ordered the accused jointly and severally to pay the costs.

SO
ORDERED.”^[2]

In their brief, appellants assigned seven errors which can be
consolidated and simplified as follows:

1. The lower court erred in believing the testimony of prosecution witnesses,
   specially Rene Bernarte, Venerando Yambao and Corporal Rowen Yabut, and hence in
   finding that the appellants took part in the incident where Prospero Enriquez,
   Jr. sustained stab wounds which led to his death.

2. The lower court erred in finding the presence of the qualifying circumstance
   of treachery or alevosia.

3. The lower court erred in finding the presence of the element of conspiracy
   and that appellants were co-conspirators.

We consider these assigned errors seriatim.

The
first error relates to the credibility of the principal prosecution witnesses
and to the weight that may properly be ascribed to their respective
testimonies.  Two were presented as eyewitnesses:  Rene Bernarte and Venerando
Yambao.

The testimony of Rene Bernarte may be summed up in the following
terms.^[3] Bernarte was with Prospero
Enriquez, Jr., Rolando Enriquez, and two others inside the Enver Restaurant, a
restaurant owned by the Enriquez family.  A group of persons including the
accused Romeo and Jose Bautista and Isaias Yambao came into the restaurant and
sat down and drank beer.  After some time, this latter group started to provoke
trouble inside the restaurant.  Isaias Yambao went out of the restaurant, stood
near the door and challenged the group of Prospero Enriquez, Jr. to come out and
fight.  Alarmed at this development, Bernarte went out through a side door
leading to the Enver Mart, an adjacent grocery store, and proceeded to the
Macabebe Municipal Hall, about 25 meters away from the restaurant, to call for
help.  There, Bernarte approached Patrolman Yabut and Corporal Dizon and, with
these two policemen, jogged back to the vicinity of the restaurant where trouble
had already ensued.  Bernarte saw Romeo Bautista stab Pablo Liangco, and
immediately thereafter, grab Prospero Enriquez, Jr.  Prospero was then in the
process of backing off from Jose Bautista and Isaias Yambao, who were also armed
with knives and blocking Prospero’s way to the municipal hall.  Romeo Bautista
grabbed the victim from behind and by the neck with his left hand.  Both fell on
the ground, Prospero on top of Romeo.  In the course of the ensuing struggle,
Romeo stabbed Prospero several times with a knife in his right hand.  Meantime,
the other two accused, Jose Bautista and Isaias Yambao, ran off towards the
Macabebe Municipal hall.  Romeo himself ran towards the direction of San Gabriel
(a barrio of Macabebe) but was apprehended by Patrolman Carillo to whom
Bernarte had pointed out Romeo as among the culprits.  Bernarte saw Prospero
lifted from the ground by people who went to his succour, helped on board a car
and rushed to the hospital for treatment.

The second eyewitness,
Venerando Yambao, testified substantially as follows.^[4] Venerando was with his friends Bernarte,
Prospero Enriquez, Jr. and others having merienda at approximately 7:00
p.m. at the Enver Restaurant.  After Bernarte had left the restaurant, Venerando
went out of the restaurant too, to pass water.  As of that time, nothing unusual
had happened inside the restaurant.  Venerando did not see Isaias Yambao nor
Jose Bautista inside the restaurant.  However, when Venerando was about to go
back to the restaurant, he saw Prospero Enriquez, Jr. running in the direction
of the municipal building.  Jose Bautista and Isaias Yambao stopped Prospero and
blocked his way, stabbing at him and Prospero moved back.  Romeo Bautista caught
Prospero from behind and held him by the neck with the left hand.  A struggle
ensued and both fell to the ground with Romeo underneath Prospero and Romeo
stabbing Prospero in the process.  Prospero lay on the ground bleeding until he
was lifted by people and placed inside a car.  Venerando went up to Patrolman
Yabut and pointed out Romeo Bautista as the culprit as Romeo went off towards
Barrio San Gabriel.

Corporal Rowen Yabut testified that Prospero
Enriquez, Jr., while standing and holding his bleeding stomach, pointed to Romeo
Bautista (“That one wearing shorts”)^[5]
as the attacker who had stabbed him.  Patrolman Carillo who had arrested Romeo
Bautista as he headed towards Barrio San Gabriel testified that, upon such
arrest, he took from Romeo a bladed weapon with blood on the blade, brought him
to the municipal jail and locked him up.^[6]

The defense assails the testimony
of the prosecution witnesses and underscores what the defense contends are
inconsistencies therein.

In respect, firstly, of the testimony of Rene
Bernarte, the defense notes that while Bernarte who had run to the municipal
building to summon help and who together with police officers proceeded back
towards the Enver Restaurant, had professed to have seen the stabbing of
Prospero Enriquez, Jr. from beginning to end, one of the policemen who had
responded to the call for help, Patrolman Rodolfo Carillo, testified that when
he and other Macabebe policemen reached the vicinity of Enver Restaurant, the
trouble had already subsided.^[7] The
defense also notes, secondly, that Bernarte had testified that he was only about
four meters away from Romeo and Prospero as the former held the latter by the
neck.^[8] The defense, however, points out
that the other eyewitness, Venerando Yambao, who himself had asserted that he
was about six meters away when Romeo was knifing Prospero, nevertheless denied
seeing Bernarte at that same moment.^[9]
Indeed, Venerando Yambao stated that he had not seen Bernarte at any place nor
at any time outside the Enver Restaurant nor while the stabbing affray was
taking place.^[10] Thirdly, Bernarte also
testified that Romeo had stabbed another man, Pablo Liangco, before grabbing
Prospero by the neck and knifing him.  Pablo Liangco, on the other hand, who had
sustained knife wounds, filed a criminal case for frustrated murder against five
persons — but not against Romeo Bautista:  a singular omission if indeed Romeo
had stabbed Pablo.  Finally, the defense notes Bernarte’s claim that the three
accused had sought to provoke trouble inside the Enver Restaurant and that
Isaias Yambao had challenged Rolando Enriquez, a brother of Prospero, to a
fight.  The other eyewitness Venerando Yambao, upon the other hand, stated that
nothing unusual had happened inside the restaurant from the time he (Venerando)
arrived up to the time he stepped out to pass water and that Jose Bautista and
Isaias Yambao were not inside the restaurant before he stepped out.

The
defense, finally, seeks to impeach the testimony of Corporal Yabut by pointing
to the testimony of Venerando Yambao that he (Venerando) did not see Prospero
stand up after having fallen to the ground nor did he see Prospero talking to
Corporal Yabut.^[11]

We do not
believe that the inconsistencies noted by the defense are necessarily material
nor fatal to the prosecution’s case against Romeo Bautista.  These
inconsistencies basically relate to the timing or the precise sequence of
particular events.  The fact that one claimed eyewitness did not see the other
claimed eyewitness at a particular given moment in time, does not, of course,
prove that the latter (Bernarte) was not present at all to witness the affray. 
It may be supposed that Bernarte was probably mistaken in testifying that Romeo
Bautista had stabbed Pablo Liangco before grabbing Prospero Enriquez by the
neck.  We do not believe, however, that such error necessarily means that
Bernarte was also mistaken when he identified Romeo as attacking and stabbing
Prospero.  That error and the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses must be viewed in the context of the confused turmoil and commotion —
many people rushing hither and thither — within which the stabbing of Prospero
and Pablo took place.  The testimonies of Bernarte and Venerando Yambao coincide
on this specific point:  Romeo grabbed Prospero from behind and stabbed him.  We
note also that the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses on this essential point
were not only mutually corroborative but were also supported and strengthened by
the statements of the two policemen Yabut and Carillo.  The defense was, in
particular, unable to rebut or explain away the testimony of Patrolman Carillo
about the bloody knife recovered from Romeo upon his arrest.

Turning to
the case against Jose Bautista, we note firstly that only one (Venerando Yambao)
of the two eyewitnesses testified that Jose (along with Isaias Yambao) was
stabbing Prospero as the latter was backing off.  The other
eyewitness, Rene Bernarte, testified only that Jose and Isaias Yambao were
“armed with knives when they stopped and accosted Prospero”.^[12] Venerando Yambao’s testimony on that
specific point, in other words, stands uncorroborated.  The prosecution
presented no knife or bladed weapon found anywhere and in any way connected with
Jose Bautista.  The prosecution did not attempt to relate any of the knife
wounds sustained by Prospero to a frontal attack on him, as distinguished from
an attack commenced from behind him.  The nature and location of the wounds of
Prospero were not shown to be incompatible with a hypothesis that they had all
been inflicted by Romeo as he held Prospero by the neck and commenced stabbing
the latter even as both fell backwards to the ground.

In his defense,
Jose Bautista stated that when a waitress inside the restaurant had shouted
“Trouble! There is trouble!”,^[13] he went
outside the restaurant and upon seeing people chasing and fighting one another,
ran across the road and left for home on board a tricycle for fear that he would
get involved and get hurt in the mêlée.^[14] Corroboration of this statement of Jose
is furnished by Pablo Liangco who testified that as soon as the waitress had
shouted in alarm, Jose ran out of the restaurant, and about fifty meters away,
boarded a “motorized Honda for ferrying passengers”.^[15] Jose proceeded to Barrio San Roque where
he resided, went to the ricefield where he had a tilapia pond and there
spent the rest of the night as he had often done before while watching over the
tilapia he was cultivating.

The trial court construed the
withdrawal of Jose Bautista as “flight” and as evincing a “feeling of guilt”. 
This is not supported by the evidence of record.  Jose testified that on the day
following the tumultuous commotion, he learned from his son that the Mayor of
Macabebe was looking for him and wanted to talk to him at the house of the
Barangay Captain of San Roque.  Jose repaired to the house of the Barangay
Captain and there waited for the Mayor for about three hours.  When the
Mayor arrived and queried Jose about the events of the previous night, Jose
replied that he was not aware of what had ensued the night before.  Upon request
of the Mayor, Jose voluntarily went with the Mayor to the municipal building. 
Jose testified that there in the municipal building, he first learned what had
happened to Prospero Enriquez, Jr. and Pablo Liangco.  The circumstances of Jose
staying that night in Barangay San Roque where he resided, his waiting for the
Mayor for hours and proceeding with him to the municipal building, do not
necessarily nor reasonably yield an inference of flight and “a feeling of
guilt”.  The same circumstances, on the contrary, may suggest innocence and a
belief that that innocence would be perceived by others.

We are not
unmindful of prior rulings of the Court that the testimony of one witness is
sufficient for conviction where such witness positively identified the accused
as the wrongdoer.^[16] In the instant case
of Jose Bautista, however, the totality of the circumstances here relating to
him, especially the milieu of tumult, disorder and confusion, (which is
perhaps most dramatically brought home by recalling that three supposed
co-accused remain, even today, unidentified:  “John Doe, Peter Doe and Richard
Doe”) is such that a very substantial doubt persists in our mind whether Jose
had in fact stabbed Prospero at all.  That milieu we regard as imposing
upon the prosecution a more exacting degree of proof than would be necessary in
the absence of confusion and turmoil.  The trial court itself made no
explicit finding that Jose had stabbed Prospero and apparently held Jose guilty
along with his brother Romeo solely on the basis that conspiracy being shown,
the acts of Romeo were the acts of Jose.  We are hence compelled to conclude
that the prosecution did not succeed in proving Jose’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, nor even by preponderance of evidence.

We turn to the next
assigned error concerning the lower court’s finding that treachery was present
and qualified the killing of Prospero Enriquez, Jr. to murder.  The trial court
held that:

“The manner of the attack on the victim by accused Romeo
Bautista by holding the victim by the neck as the accused Romeo Bautista
approached the victim from behind, to the mind of the [trial] court, prevented
the victim from defending himself and ensured the consummation of the crime,
without risk or danger to the accused, thereby constituting treachery or
alevosia that would qualify the killing of Prospero Enriquez, Jr. to
murder.”^[17]

Once more we note that that killing must be viewed within the
context of the actual events surrounding it and that those events constituted a
turbulent affray, a disorderly commotion, disorganized and confused fighting,
with people dashing back and forth.^[18]
Where the immediate context of a killing is one of a melee or riot (here a
mini-riot) or confused fighting, the element of treachery can scarcely be found
present.  In such a context, the relative position of Romeo vis-a-vis
Prospero — the attack by the former upon the latter from behind — may be
presumed to have come about by mere accident rather than by deliberate design. 
There was certainly no evidence that such was deliberately and purposely sought
by Romeo and his brother.  The opportunity for such an attack from behind
appears to have materialized suddenly and the attack by Romeo itself the product
of an impulse of the moment.  Such circumstances negate treachery, evident
premeditation, abuse of superior strength and nocturnity.^[19] Finally, the Solicitor General has agreed
with the defense that there was nothing to show that the method or manner of
Romeo’s attack upon Prospero was deliberately or consciously chosen by the
accused and that therefore treachery cannot properly be found in this case.  The
Solicitor General concluded, correctly, that the killing of Prospero Enriquez,
Jr. constituted homicide, not murder.^[20]

The last assigned error relates to
the finding of conspiracy.  In finding conspiracy, the trial court relied wholly
on a process of inference from the apparently concerted acts of the accused:

“The victim was intercepted by accused Jose Bautista and Isaias
Yambao alias “Bibilugin” and when the victim retreated
backward, accused Romeo Bautista, from behind the victim, held the victim by the
neck with his left hand, and as they fell on the ground, with accused Romeo
Bautista beneath the victim, accused Romeo Bautista stabbed the victim several
times with a knife, the accused using his right hand.

The court is
convinced that the concerted attack by the accused on the victim proved the
existence of conspiracy among the accused in the killing of the victim
Prospero Enriquez, Jr.”^[21]

There was, in other words, no evidence at all of any prior
agreement among the accused to kill Prospero Enriquez, Jr. nor indeed to commit
any other crime.

It is important to recall, still again, that the context
of the killing here was not that of a one-to-one, or more precisely, a
three-to-one fight.  The context was, as earlier stressed, that of tumultuous
and confused fighting.  In this context, the assumed juxtaposition of Jose
Bautista and Isaias Yambao in front of Prospero Enriquez, Jr., with Romeo
Bautista behind Prospero, could very well have been brought about fortuitously
or accidentally in the course of the disorganized fighting.  No necessary
inference of conspiracy arises from such a juxtaposition in such a context.^[22] Any inference of a common design or of
concerted action is further weakened by the testimony adduced by the prosecution
itself to the effect that both Jose and Isaias ran away towards the municipal
building even as Romeo held Prospero by the neck and tumbled to the ground.  Had
a common design truly existed, the natural reaction would have been for Jose and
Isaias to assist Romeo and to gang up on Prospero.  We hold the trial court to
be in error here.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial
court is modified with the following results:

1. Jose Bautista is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.  Since his
   participation in the crime has not been shown even by a preponderance of
   evidence, no indemnity or civil liability is properly imposed on
   him.

2. Romeo Bautista is found GUILTY of the lesser crime of homicide and, there
   being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance present, his sentence is reduced
   to reclusion temporal in its medium period.  Applying the Indeterminate
   Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8)
   years and one (1) day of prision mayor as a minimum to fourteen (14) years,
   eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as a
   maximum.

3. The indemnity for the death of Prospero Enriquez, Jr. is reduced to Thirty
   Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), Philippine currency, and the award for moral
   damages shall be Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine
   currency.

4. The award of Forty Three Thousand Two Hundred Ten Pesos and 20/100
   (P43,210.20), Philippine currency, for actual damages incurred by way of burial
   and other expenses by the family of the deceased, stands.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz,
Gancayco, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.