G.R. No. 233193.  October 10, 2018.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,  vs.  RENATO
BACOLOT y IDLISAN, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Exempting Circumstances; Insanity; For the defense of

insanity to be successfully invoked as a circumstance to evade criminal
liability, it is necessary that insanity must relate to the time immediately
preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the offense with which
the accused is charged.—For the defense of insanity to be successfully
invoked as a circumstance to evade criminal liability, it is necessary that
insanity must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with
the commission of the offense with which the accused is charged. In short,
in order for the accused to be exempted from criminal liability under a plea
of insanity, he must successfully show that: (1) he was completely deprived
of intelligence; and (2) such complete deprivation of intelligence must be
manifest at the time or immediately before the commission of the offense.
Having invoked the defense of insanity, accused-appellant is deemed to
have admitted the commission of the crime. Accordingly, he has the onus to
establish with certainty that he was completely deprived of intelligence
because of his mental condition or illness.
Same; Same; Same; Time and again, the Supreme Court (SC) has
stressed that an inquiry into the mental state of accused-appellant should
relate to the period before or at the precise moment of doing the act which is
the subject of the inquiry, and his mental condition after that crucial period
or during the trial is inconsequential for purposes of determining his
criminal liability.—The Court agrees with the CA that the accused-
appellant’s defense of insanity is belied by the following circumstances: 
First, his claim that he has absolutely no recollection of the hacking incident
amounts to a mere general denial that can be made with facility. This, by
itself, does not prove that the accused-appellant had lost his grip on reality
on that occasion. It has been held that the professed inability of the accused
to recall events before and after the stabbing incident, as in the instant case,
does not necessarily indicate an aberrant mind, but is

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

 
 

156
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Bacolot

more indicative of a concocted excuse to exculpate himself. Second,

accused-appellant’s voluntary surrender the following day belies his claim
of insanity. This act tends to establish that he was well aware of what he had
just committed, and that he was capable of discernment. Lastly, Dr.
Genotiva’s testimony regarding accused-appellant’s mental condition refers
to the time he was examined in 2005, which is three years prior to the
incident and in August 15, 2008, which is three months after the
commission of the crime. The testimony of Dr. Genotiva failed to show the
mental condition of accused-appellant between 2005 and 2008. Hence, the
Court cannot second guess whether the accused-appellant was insane at the
time the crime was committed. Time and again, this Court has stressed that
an inquiry into the mental state of accused-appellant should relate to the
period before or at the precise moment of doing the act which is the subject
of the inquiry, and his mental condition after that crucial period or during
the trial is inconsequential for purposes of determining his criminal liability.
Same; Qualifying Circumstances; Treachery; There is treachery when
the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means
and methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and
specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.—There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means and
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and
specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. To qualify as an offense, the
following conditions must exist: (1) the assailant employed means, methods
or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person attacked
no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods
or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the
assailant. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by
an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance
to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of
himself. Treachery has two elements, which must be read in conjunction
with each other. Thus, it was an error for both the RTC and the CA to
conclude that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery simply because it was alleged by the prosecution that the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retali-

 
 

157

VOL. 883, OCTOBER 10, 2018 157

People vs. Bacolot

ate. There must also be a showing that the offender consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and forms in the
execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution,
without risk to himself.
Findings of Fact; Generally, findings of fact of the trial courts are
accorded great weight, particularly in the determination of credibility of
witnesses as said courts have the opportunity to observe the witness and the
manner in which they testified.—Generally, findings of fact of the trial
courts are accorded great weight, particularly in the determination of
credibility of witnesses as said courts have the opportunity to observe the
witness and the manner in which they testified. However, this can be
disregarded when it appears on the record that the trial court may have
overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied some significant fact or
circumstance which if considered, would have altered the result. This is
axiomatic in appeals in criminal cases where the whole case is thrown open
for review on issues of both fact and law, and the Court may even consider
issues which were not raised by the parties as errors.
Criminal Law; Qualifying Circumstances; Treachery; Homicide; With
the removal of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime is
homicide and not murder.—With the removal of the qualifying circumstance
of treachery, the crime is homicide and not murder. Under Article 249 of the
RPC, any person found guilty of homicide shall be meted the penalty of
reclusion temporal, a penalty which contains three periods. Given that
Renato voluntarily surrendered himself, Article 64(2) states that when only a
mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the felony, the penalty
shall be imposed in its minimum period. Thus, applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the maximum penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its
minimum period, while the minimum penalty shall be prisión mayor in any
of its periods. Thus, Renato is to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6)
years and one (1) day of prisión mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals, Twentieth

Division.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 
 

158

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bacolot

  Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

  Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

 
CAGUIOA,  J.:
 
Before this Court is an appeal1 filed under Section 13, Rule 124
of the Rules of Court from the Decision2 dated April 27, 2017 of the
Court of Appeals (CA), Twentieth (20th) Division in C.A.-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 01965, which affirmed the Decision3 dated September 22,
2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Eighth Judicial Region, Branch
13, Carigara, Leyte (RTC), in Crim. Case No. 4887, finding herein
accused-appellant Renato Bacolot y Idlisan (Renato or accused-
appellant) guilty of the crime of murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).
 
The Facts
 
On June 12, 2008, an Information was filed charging Renato of
the crime of murder allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 14th day of May 2008 in the Municipality of

Carigara, Province of Leyte and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a bladed weapon, and
with evident intent to kill, with treachery, evident premeditation and
employing means to insure and afford impunity did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked (sic), assault and
hacked (sic) Rodolfo Leona Jabayjabay with his weapon resulting in
the untimely death of said Rodolfo L. Jabayjabay.

_______________

1 See Notice of Appeal dated May 19, 2017; Rollo, pp. 20-21.
2 Id., at pp. 4-19. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, with Associate
Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
3 CA Rollo, pp. 40-55. Penned by Presiding Judge Emelinda R. Maquilan.

 
 

159

VOL. 883, OCTOBER 10, 2018 159

People vs. Bacolot

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

 
Upon arraignment, Renato’s counsel manifested that Renato was
suffering from mental disorder and requested for his examination at
the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC), Psychiatric
Department, Tacloban City, which the RTC granted.5
The medical report submitted by Dr. Lorelei Grace C. Genotiva
(Dr. Genotiva) of the EVRMC affirmed that Renato was mentally
incompetent to stand for trial; hence, trial was suspended and Renato
was sent to the National Center for Mental Health, Mandaluyong
City, for further evaluation and treatment.6
On February 18, 2009, the RTC received a letter from Dr. Edison
C. Galindez, Chief of the Forensic Psychiatry Section of the
National Center for Mental Health, attesting that Renato had
regained competency to stand trial and recommended his discharge
from the institution.7
On May 20, 2009, Renato was arraigned. He pleaded not guilty.8
 
Version of the Prosecution
 
The prosecution presented witnesses Arnulfo Jabayjabay
(Arnulfo), Dr. Bella Profetana (Dr. Profetana), and Angeles
Jabayjabay (Angeles).9
Arnulfo, the brother of the victim Rodolfo Leona Jabayjabay
(Rodolfo), testified that on May 14, 2008, while having a drinking
spree with Renato and some other companions, in-

_______________

4 Id.
5 Rollo, pp. 5-6.
6 Id., at p. 6.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
 
 

160

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bacolot

cluding Rodolfo who subsequently joined them, Renato suddenly

took a scythe (matabia) from Arnulfo’s waist and hacked Rodolfo
three times hitting the latter on the neck, back, and fingers. The
hacking happened while Rodolfo was singing with his face turned
towards the television. Renato then turned towards Arnulfo and
hacked him too on the neck, head, and left shoulder. Arnulfo
survived, but Rodolfo died.10
Dr. Profetana conducted the postmortem examination on
Rodolfo. She testified that the cause of Rodolfo’s death was
hypovolemic shock, secondary to blood loss due to hacking wounds.
There were four wounds: one, on the right side of Rodolfo’s neck;
another at his back; the third an incised wound on his arm; and the
fourth an incised wound on his right hand. Of these, the neck injury
was fatal, while the rest were not. Dr. Profetana opined that the
hacking wound on the neck might have been inflicted when the
victim was in a position lower than the assailant.11
Lastly, Angeles, mother of Rodolfo and Arnulfo, testified that she
was on her way to attend to Arnulfo who was already in the hospital
when she happened to pass by the lifeless body of Rodolfo lying at
the side of the road of Brgy. Sta. Fe, Carigara, Leyte. She informed
Brgy.  Kagawad  Emeriata Dacara of the death of her son, and the
latter, in turn, reported  via  a text message, the matter to the police
authorities.12
 
Version of the Defense
 
Renato pleaded insanity as defense. His lone witness, Dr.
Genotiva, testified that she had previously examined Renato in the
year 2005 prior to his arrest. That was when Renato tried to burn
himself and had to be admitted for his suicidal tendencies. Dr.
Genotiva diagnosed Renato then as having

_______________

10  Id.
11  Id., at p. 7.
12  Id.

 
 

161

VOL. 883, OCTOBER 10, 2018 161

People vs. Bacolot

“auditory hallucinations, depressed mood with appropriate effect,”

and was “able to converse, but he was not oriented to time and
place, he had poor memory recall of the incidents, and he had blank
stares.”13
Dr. Genotiva again examined Renato after his arrest on August
15, 2008, September 12, 2008, and October 10, 2008. Recent
psychological tests led her to recommend against Renato’s trial as he
still had psychotic trends despite his calm behavior. According to Dr.
Genotiva, Renato had poor memory recall of the incidents relating to
the commission of the crime and that he did not know what he did at
the time. Also, Renato showed not only psychotic trends, but a full-
blown psychosis, and that his schizophrenia had no chance of being
completely healed.14
 
Ruling of the RTC
 
After trial on the merits, in its Decision15  dated September 22,
2014, the RTC convicted Renato of the crime of murder. The
dispositive portion of said Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused  RENATO

BACOLOT y IDLISAN, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of the
crime of MURDER, this Court, hereby sentences accused RENATO
BACOLOT, a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Further, accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, 
civil indemnity, in the amount of  Seventy Five Thousand
(P75,000.00) Pesos, moral damages in the amount of Seventy Five
 Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, exemplary damages  in the amount
of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos and temperate damages in
the amount of Fifteen Thousand (P15,000.00) Pesos.

_______________

13  Id.
14  Id., at pp. 7-8.
15  CA Rollo, pp. 40-55.

 
 

162

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bacolot

No costs.
SO ORDERED.16

 
The RTC gave credence to the positive identification of Renato
by eyewitness Arnulfo which, according to the court  a  quo, was
corroborated by the testimonies of the other witnesses and
documentary evidence. The RTC emphasized that the defense did
not deny that Renato killed Rodolfo, but failed to present evidence
to support Renato’s plea of insanity. Thus, the RTC concluded that
Renato was sane at the time he killed Rodolfo; hence, criminally
liable.17
 
Ruling of the CA
 
18
In the assailed Decision  dated April 27, 2017, the CA affirmed
the RTC’s conviction of Renato and held that (1) the prosecution
was able to sufficiently prove the elements of murder; (2) the
element of treachery was present in the killing of Rodolfo; and (3)
Renato’s defense of insanity was not proven. The dispositive portion
reads:

WHEREFORE, the  appeal  is  DENIED  for lack of merit. The

Decision dated September 22, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court,
Eight Judicial Region, Branch 13, Carigara, Leyte, in Criminal Case
No. 4887 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
award of exemplary damages is increased to P75,000.00. All
damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6%  per
annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.19 (emphases in the original)

_______________

16  Id., at p. 55.
 17  Rollo, p. 8.
18  Id., at pp. 4-19.
19  Id., at p. 18.
 
 

163

VOL. 883, OCTOBER 10, 2018 163

People vs. Bacolot

The CA, however, modified the award of damages to be paid to

the heirs of Rodolfo. As to exemplary damages, it increased the
award from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00.20
 
Issues
 
For resolution of the Court are the following issues submitted by
the accused-appellant:
 
(1) Whether the CA gravely erred in convicting the accused-
appellant of the crime charged despite the fact that the defense
was able to prove insanity; and
(2) Whether the CA gravely erred in convicting the accused-
appellant of murder despite the prosecution’s failure to
establish the qualifying circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The appeal is partly meritorious. The Court affirms the
conviction of the accused-appellant, but only for the crime of
homicide, instead of murder, as the qualifying circumstance of
treachery was not present in the killing of Rodolfo.
 
Accused-appellant’s de-
fense of insanity was not
proven
 
The accused-appellant claims exemption from criminal liability
and insists on his acquittal due to his alleged insanity immediately
prior to, during and immediately after hacking Rodolfo. According
to him, he was completely deprived of intelligence, making his
criminal act involuntary. To prove his alleged insanity, accused-
appellant presented as witness

_______________

20  Id.

 
 
 164

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bacolot

Dr. Genotiva of EVRMC, who diagnosed him to be suffering from

psychosis and schizophrenia.
The Court is not convinced with accused-appellant’s defense.
In the case of People v. Isla,21  the Court stated that:

Article 12 of the [RPC] provides for one of the circumstances

which will exempt one from criminal liability which is when the
perpetrator of the act was an imbecile or insane, unless the latter has
acted during a lucid interval. This circumstance, however, is not
easily available to an accused as a successful defense. Insanity is the
exception rather than the rule in the human condition. Under Article
800 of the Civil Code, the presumption is that every human is sane.
Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the
burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. It is in the
nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity
admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not
guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accused’s
insanity, must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding
or simultaneous with the commission of the offense which he is
charged.22 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

 
For the defense of insanity to be successfully invoked as a
circumstance to evade criminal liability, it is necessary that insanity
must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with
the commission of the offense with which the accused is charged. In
short, in order for the accused to be exempted from criminal liability
under a plea of insanity, he must successfully show that: (1) he was
completely deprived of intelligence; and (2) such complete
deprivation of intelli-

_______________

21 699 Phil. 256; 686 SCRA 267 (2012) citing People v. Tibon, 636 Phil. 521; 622
SCRA 510 (2010).
22 People v. Tibon, id., at pp. 266-267; p. 519.

 
 
165

VOL. 883, OCTOBER 10, 2018 165

People vs. Bacolot
gence must be manifest at the time or immediately before the
commission of the offense.23
Having invoked the defense of insanity, accused-appellant is
deemed to have admitted the commission of the crime. Accordingly,
he has the  onus  to establish with certainty that he was completely
deprived of intelligence because of his mental condition or illness.24
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds
that the accused-appellant failed to prove that he was insane at the
time or immediately before the commission of the offense.
As can be gleaned from Dr. Genotiva’s testimony, there was no
finding whatsoever that accused-appellant exhibited any of the
myriad symptoms associated with schizophrenia immediately before
or simultaneous with the hacking of Rodolfo. This facet of Dr.
Genotiva’s testimony surfaced upon the RTC’s prodding, viz.:
Cross-examination of Dr. Genotiva —
COURT:
Q: This psychosis and schizophrenia, doctor, is of course a state of mind condition?
A: Yes, Your Honor, it is a thinking disorder.
Q: Wherein you could only know the state of mind of a person if on that time you
have conducted his mental condition.
A: Yes, Your Honor, right immediately, if he was arrested immediately after the
murder.
Q: Everything he did before does not mean that he was at that time suffering from
psychosis?

_______________

23 People v. Cacho, G.R. No. 218425, September 27, 2017, 841 SCRA 165, 175.
24 Id.

 
 

166

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bacolot

A: Because I was not able to examine the client at the time immediately, I
could not say that.
Q: But it could be deciphered according to the situation or the circumstances
affecting the situation, am I correct?
A: It could be, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor, I was not able to examine, I cannot
speak for him.25 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

 
Although the accused-appellant was diagnosed with
schizophrenia in 2005, and again a few months after the stabbing
incident in 2008, this evidence of insanity may be accorded weight
only if there is also proof of abnormal psychological behavior
immediately before or simultaneous with the commission of the
crime. The evidence on the alleged insanity must refer to the time
preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of
execution.26
Furthermore, the Court agrees with the CA that the accused-
appellant’s defense of insanity is belied by the following
circumstances: First, his claim that he has absolutely no recollection
of the hacking incident amounts to a mere general denial that can be
made with facility. This, by itself, does not prove that the accused-
appellant had lost his grip on reality on that occasion. It has been
held that the professed inability of the accused to recall events
before and after the stabbing incident, as in the instant case, does not
necessarily indicate an aberrant mind, but is more indicative of a
concocted excuse to exculpate himself.27  Second, accused-
appellant’s voluntary surrender the following day belies his claim of
insanity. This act tends to establish that he was well aware of what
he had

_______________

25 Rollo, pp. 15-16.

26  People v. Estrada, 389 Phil. 216, 232; 333 SCRA 699, 713 (2000), citing
People v. Austria, 328 Phil. 1208; 260 SCRA 106 (1996).
27 People v. Tibon, supra note 21 at p. 531; p. 520, citing People v. Ocfemia, 398
Phil. 210; 344 SCRA 315 (2000).
 
 

167

VOL. 883, OCTOBER 10, 2018 167

People vs. Bacolot

just committed, and that he was capable of discernment.28 Lastly, Dr.

Genotiva’s testimony regarding accused-appel-lant’s mental
condition refers to the time he was examined in 2005, which is three
years prior to the incident and in August 15, 2008, which is three
months after the commission of the crime. The testimony of Dr.
Genotiva failed to show the mental condition of accused-appellant
between 2005 and 2008. Hence, the Court cannot second guess
whether the accused-appellant was insane at the time the crime was
committed. Time and again, this Court has stressed that an inquiry
into the mental state of accused-appellant should relate to the period
before or at the precise moment of doing the act which is the subject
of the inquiry, and his mental condition after that crucial period or
during the trial is inconsequential for purposes of determining his
criminal liability.29
Indubitably, the defense failed to meet the quantum of proof
required to overthrow the presumption of sanity.
 
The prosecution failed
to prove treachery
 
In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s finding that
the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, thereby
making Renato liable for murder instead of homicide. The CA held:

Additionally, this Court finds no reason to deviate from the

finding of the RTC that the qualifying circumstance of treachery
attended the killing of Rodolfo.
x x x x
The evidence for the prosecution, again through the eyewitness
account of Arnulfo Jabayjabay, prove that, while

_______________

28 Rollo, pp. 16-17.

29 People v. Villa, Jr., 387 Phil. 155, 166; 331 SCRA 142, 153-154 (2000).
 
 

168

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bacolot

the victim was singing, and his face and attention were focused on
the television in front of him, accused-appellant, without provocation
from anyone or warning from himself, took hold of the scythe then
tucked in the waist of Arnulfo. With it, the accused-appellant
delivered a series of thrusts and swings at Rodolfo and succeeded in
inflicting four (4) wounds from which Rodolfo eventually died. As
opined by Dr. Profetana, one wound, the one at Rodolfo’s neck, is
fatal and may have been inflicted while the victim was in a position
lower than accused-appellant.30

 
On the other hand, accused-appellant posits that the RTC
misappreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. He insists
that the means he used in killing Rodolfo was not deliberately and
consciously adopted since he did not hatch a plan to kill Rodolfo
prior to their merriment, and the bladed weapon used was not even
his but that of Arnulfo.
On this issue, the Court rules in favor of accused-appellant.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means and methods or forms in the
execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.31 To qualify as an offense, the following
conditions must exist: (1) the assailant employed means, methods or
forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said
means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted by the assailant.32  The essence of treachery is
the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to

_______________

30 Rollo, p. 11.
31  People v. Duran, Jr., G.R. No. 215748, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 188,
205-206.
32 Id., citing People v. Dulin, 762 Phil. 24; 760 SCRA 413 (2015).
 
 

169

VOL. 883, OCTOBER 10, 2018 169

People vs. Bacolot

defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of

himself.33
Treachery has two elements, which must be read in conjunction
with each other. Thus, it was an error for both the RTC and the CA
to conclude that the killing was attended by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery simply because it was alleged by the
prosecution that the attack made it impossible for the victim to
defend himself or retaliate. There must also be a showing that the
offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods and forms in the execution of the crime which tended
directly to insure such execution, without risk to himself.34
In the case at bar, the following circumstances negate the
presence of treachery: First, the stabbing incident happened during a
drinking spree in which accused-appellant was a part. He did not
deliberately seek the presence of the victim as he was already in the
same vicinity as the latter when he hacked the victim.  Second, in
killing the victim, accused-appellant did not even use his own
weapon — he merely took a scythe from Arnulfo, who was sitting
beside him. In a similar case, the Court held that treachery cannot be
presumed merely from the fact that the attack was sudden. The
suddenness of an attack does not, of itself, suffice to support a
finding of  alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the
decision was made suddenly and the victim’s helpless position was
accidental.35  Based on the first and second circumstances above
mentioned, accused-appellant’s decision to attack the victim was
more of a sudden impulse on his part than a planned decision.
Considering the foregoing, it was not proven that the means
Renato used in killing Rodolfo was deliberately and consciously
adopted by the former. The incident, which hap-

_______________

33  Id., citing People v. Escote, Jr., 448 Phil. 749, 786; 400 SCRA 603, 632-633
(2003).
 34 Id., citing Revised Penal Code, Art. 14, Par. 16.
35 People v. Escoto, 313 Phil. 785, 802; 244 SCRA 87, 100 (1995).

 
 

170

170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bacolot

pened at the spur of the moment, negates the possibility that

accused-appellant consciously adopted the means to execute the
crime committed.36 Thus, it is not possible to appreciate treachery
against Renato.
Generally, findings of fact of the trial courts are accorded great
weight, particularly in the determination of credibility of witnesses
as said courts have the opportunity to observe the witness and the
manner in which they testified.37  However, this can be disregarded
when it appears on the record that the trial court may have
overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied some significant fact or
circumstance which if considered, would have altered the result.
38
  This is axiomatic in appeals in criminal cases where the whole
case is thrown open for review on issues of both fact and law, and
the Court may even consider issues which were not raised by the
parties as errors.39
Therefore, with the removal of the qualifying circumstance of
treachery, the crime is homicide and not murder. Under Article 249
of the RPC, any person found guilty of homicide shall be meted the
penalty of  reclusion temporal, a penalty which contains three
periods.40 Given that Renato voluntarily surrendered himself, Article
64(2) states that when only a mitigating circumstance attended the
commission of the felony, the penalty shall be imposed in its
minimum period.41 Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the maximum penalty shall be  reclusion temporal  in its minimum
period, while the minimum penalty shall be prisión mayor in

_______________

36 Fantastico v. Malicse, Sr., 750 Phil. 120, 137; 745 SCRA 123, 139-140 (2015).
37 Supra note 31 at p. 211.
38 Id., citing People v. Gaspar, 376 Phil. 762, 785; 318 SCRA 649, 671 (1999).
39 Id., citing Luz v. People, 683 Phil. 399, 406; 667 SCRA 421, 428-429 (2012).
40  People v. Endaya, Jr., G.R. No. 225745, February 28, 2018, 857 SCRA 106,
119.
41 Id.

 
 

171
 VOL. 883, OCTOBER 10, 2018 171
People vs. Bacolot

any of its periods.42 Thus, Renato is to suffer the indeterminate penalty of

six (6) years and one (1) day of prisión mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12)
years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.43
Finally, in view of the Court’s ruling in People v. Jugueta,44 the
damages awarded in the questioned Decision are hereby modified to
civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages of
P50,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby 
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court  DECLARES  accused-appellant
Renato Bacolot  y  Idlisan  GUILTY  of  HOMICIDE, with the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, for which he is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prisión mayor, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of  reclusion temporal, as
maximum. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Rodolfo L. Jabayjabay
the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest
at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of
this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio** (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe and A. Reyes, Jr., JJ.,

concur.
J. Reyes, Jr.,*** J., On Wellness Leave.

_______________

42 Id.
43 Id.
44 783 Phil. 806; 788 SCRA 331 (2016).
**  Designated Senior Associate Justice per Section 12, R.A. 296, The Judiciary
Act of 1948, as amended.
*** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28,
2018.
 
 

172

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bacolot

Appeal partially granted.

The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and

without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the
hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape. (People vs. Las Piñas, 730 SCRA 571 [2014])
  
——o0o——

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.