People vs. Rebucan

G.R. No. 182551 (July 27, 2011)

Facts:

On January 23, 2003, Rosendo Rebucan y Lamsin was charged with double murder for the deaths of Felipe Lagera y Obero and his one-year-old grandson, Ranil Tagpis y Lagera, which occurred on November 6, 2002, in Carigara, Leyte. The Information alleged that the accused attacked the victims with a long bolo, inflicting fatal wounds that led to their deaths.

During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Dr. Ma. Bella V. Profetana, who conducted post-mortem examinations on both victims. Dr. Profetana testified that Felipe sustained multiple hacking wounds, with hypovolemic shock and massive blood loss as the causes of death. Ranil also suffered a fatal hacking wound to the head, leading to similar causes of death.

Carmela Tagpis, a five-year-old granddaughter of Felipe and sister of Ranil, testified as an eyewitness, identifying the accused as the assailant. She described how Felipe was attacked while holding Ranil, who was also struck during the assault. Other witnesses, including Felipe's wife and daughter, corroborated the events leading to the victims' deaths.

The defense presented witnesses who testified about the accused's character and his actions following the incident. The accused himself claimed that he acted out of anger after learning of the alleged sexual abuse of his wife by Felipe and his son, Timboy. He admitted to confronting Felipe and claimed that the attack was not premeditated but rather a reaction to provocation.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty of double murder, citing treachery and evident premeditation as aggravating circumstances. The RTC sentenced him to death, which was later modified by the Court of Appeals to reclusion perpetua for each count of murder.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the accused-appellant was guilty of double murder or two separate counts of murder.
2. Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were present.
3. Whether the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, intoxication, and immediate vindication of a grave offense should be considered.
4. The appropriate penalty and damages to be awarded to the victims' heirs.

Arguments:

• Prosecution: The prosecution argued that the accused acted with treachery and evident premeditation, as he entered the victims' home without provocation and attacked them suddenly. The testimony of Carmela Tagpis was pivotal in establishing the nature of the attack and the lack of any defense from the victims.

• Defense: The defense contended that the accused did not act with treachery or premeditation. They argued that the attack was a reaction to provocation and that the accused was intoxicated at the time, which impaired his judgment. The defense also claimed that the death of Ranil was accidental and that the aggravating circumstances should not apply.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding the accused guilty of two separate counts of murder. The Court held that the prosecution established the presence of treachery, as the attack was sudden and left the victims with no opportunity to defend themselves. The Court emphasized that treachery can be established even if the attack is frontal, provided it is unexpected and leaves the victim defenseless.

The Court found that the evidence did not support the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, as the prosecution failed to prove the necessary elements. Additionally, the Court ruled that the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, dwelling, and minority could not be appreciated due to their absence in the Information.

The Court acknowledged the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was properly established. However, it rejected the claims of intoxication and immediate vindication of a grave offense, noting that the accused had sufficient time to regain composure before the attack.

In terms of penalties, the Court imposed reclusion perpetua for each count of murder, as the only aggravating circumstance was treachery, and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present. The Court also modified the damages awarded to the victims' heirs, affirming civil indemnity and moral damages while increasing exemplary damages.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. Treachery in Murder: The Court reiterated that treachery is present when the attack is sudden and leaves the victim without a chance to defend themselves, qualifying the crime as murder.
2. Evident Premeditation: The Court clarified that for evident premeditation to be considered, there must be clear proof of the offender's determination to commit the crime, which was lacking in this case.
3. Mitigating Circumstances: The Court emphasized the importance of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance while clarifying the conditions under which intoxication and immediate vindication can be considered.