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…

People versus Bautista

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted two brothers, Romeo Bautista and Jose Bautista, together with Isaias Yambao and three unidentified persons, for the killing of Prospero Enriquez, Junior during a tumultuous affray in the town proper of Macabebe, Pampanga on the evening of 4 September 1983, on the eve of the town fiesta. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the element of conspiracy when the killing happens inside a melee, a confused and disorganized fight, rather than in a calm and calculated setting. It is a study in reasonable doubt, in the exacting degree of proof demanded when the surroundings are chaotic, and in the difference between murder and homicide.

Procedural History

An Information for murder was filed with the Regional Trial Court sitting in Macabebe, Pampanga. Isaias Yambao and the three unidentified accused remained at large and were never brought to trial. After arraignment and trial, the trial court rendered its decision on 3 September 1984, finding Romeo Bautista and Jose Bautista guilty of murder and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua. The trial court also ordered them jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of 50,000 pesos, to pay 43,210 pesos and 20 centavos in actual damages, to pay 500,000 pesos in moral damages, and to pay the costs. The two brothers appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning seven errors which the Court consolidated into three: the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the presence of treachery, and the existence of conspiracy.

Facts

On the evening of 4 September 1983, people gathered in the town proper of Macabebe, Pampanga for the festivities leading to the town fiesta. A group that included Romeo Bautista, Jose Bautista and Isaias Yambao entered the Enver Restaurant, a restaurant owned by the Enriquez family, and drank beer. Trouble broke out. Isaias Yambao stood near the door and challenged the group of Prospero Enriquez, Junior to come out and fight. Rene Bernarte, one of that group, slipped out through a side door and ran to the municipal hall, about 25 meters away, to call for help.

Bernarte returned with policemen and saw Romeo Bautista grab Prospero from behind by the neck with his left hand. Both fell to the ground, Prospero on top of Romeo, and Romeo stabbed Prospero several times with a knife held in his right hand. The second eyewitness, Venerando Yambao, gave substantially the same account: Jose Bautista and Isaias Yambao blocked Prospero's way as he ran toward the municipal building, and Romeo caught him from behind and stabbed him as they fell. Jose and Isaias ran off toward the municipal hall. Romeo fled toward Barrio San Gabriel but was apprehended by Patrolman Carillo, who took from him a bladed weapon with blood on the blade. Corporal Rowen Yabut testified that Prospero, holding his bleeding stomach, pointed to Romeo as his attacker. Prospero died the next day; Pablo Liangco was also wounded but survived.

For his part, Jose Bautista testified that when a waitress shouted that there was trouble, he went outside, saw people chasing and fighting one another, and ran home on a tricycle for fear of getting hurt. Pablo Liangco corroborated that Jose ran out and boarded a motorized vehicle for passengers. Jose spent the night at his tilapia pond in Barrio San Roque. The next day he learned the Mayor was looking for him, waited about three hours at the Barangay Captain's house, and voluntarily went with the Mayor to the municipal building.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Rene Bernarte, Venerando Yambao and Corporal Rowen Yabut, and in finding that the appellants took part in the stabbing of Prospero Enriquez, Junior.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the qualifying circumstance of treachery, which raised the killing from homicide to murder.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding conspiracy between Romeo Bautista and Jose Bautista.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote statutory text; it applies the concepts of treachery, conspiracy and reasonable doubt as settled doctrine. The governing rules may be stated thus:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This is the definition the Court applies when it asks whether the attack from behind was deliberately chosen, and it is the provision that decides whether the killing is murder or homicide.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

This is the rule the Court measures the evidence against, and it is why the Court insists on proof of a prior agreement or a common design, not mere inference from positions in a confused fight.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

This constitutional presumption underlies the acquittal of Jose Bautista, because the Court finds that his guilt was not shown beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the inconsistencies pointed out by the defense were not material and not fatal. They related to the timing or precise sequence of events, and they must be viewed in the context of the confused turmoil and commotion in which many people rushed to and fro. The two eyewitnesses coincided on the essential point that Romeo grabbed Prospero from behind and stabbed him, and their testimonies were corroborated by the policemen, including the bloody knife taken from Romeo upon arrest. As to Jose Bautista, however, only one eyewitness said he was stabbing Prospero, and that testimony stood uncorroborated. No weapon was connected to Jose, and the wounds were not shown to be incompatible with the hypothesis that Romeo alone inflicted them all. The Court also rejected the trial court's inference of flight, since Jose waited for the Mayor and voluntarily went with him, circumstances that may suggest innocence. The Court stressed that the milieu of tumult imposed on the prosecution a more exacting degree of proof.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery was not present. Where the immediate context of a killing is a melee or riot or confused fighting, the element of treachery can scarcely be found. The attack from behind may be presumed to have come about by mere accident rather than by deliberate design, and the opportunity materialized suddenly as the product of an impulse of the moment. Such circumstances negate treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and nocturnity. The Solicitor General himself agreed that the killing was homicide, not murder.

On the third issue, the Court held that conspiracy was not proved. There was no evidence of any prior agreement. The juxtaposition of Jose and Isaias in front of Prospero with Romeo behind him could very well have been brought about fortuitously in the disorganized fighting. Any inference of common design was weakened by the prosecution's own evidence that Jose and Isaias ran away toward the municipal building even as Romeo held Prospero, when a common design would have called for them to assist Romeo and gang up on the victim.

Doctrine

First, treachery cannot be appreciated where the killing occurs in a melee, a riot, or confused fighting, because the relative positions of the attacker and the victim may be presumed accidental rather than deliberately chosen. Second, conspiracy requires proof of a prior agreement or a common design; it cannot be inferred from the mere juxtaposition of the accused in a disorganized fight, and the flight of supposed co-conspirators instead of assisting one another negates a common design. Third, where the surroundings are chaotic, the prosecution bears a more exacting degree of proof, and the constitutional presumption of innocence requires acquittal where reasonable doubt persists. Fourth, the testimony of a single witness may suffice for conviction where it positively identifies the accused, but only if it is not left uncorroborated on the very act of participation.

Disposition

Jose Bautista was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, with no civil liability imposed; Romeo Bautista was found guilty only of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, with the death indemnity reduced to 30,000 pesos, moral damages to 50,000 pesos, and actual damages of 43,210 pesos and 20 centavos sustained.

Remember This

In a melee, treachery is not presumed and conspiracy is not inferred; the chaos itself raises the bar of proof. Examiners use this case to test the murder-to-homicide downgrade and the acquittal of a supposed co-conspirator whose only link is his position in a confused fight.