BACOLOT
BACOLOT
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
156
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Bacolot
157
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.
158
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:
_______________
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
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
_______________
10 Id.
11 Id., at p. 7.
12 Id.
161
_______________
13 Id.
14 Id., at pp. 7-8.
15 CA Rollo, pp. 40-55.
162
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:
_______________
16 Id., at p. 55.
17 Rollo, p. 8.
18 Id., at pp. 4-19.
19 Id., at p. 18.
163
_______________
20 Id.
164
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
_______________
23 People v. Cacho, G.R. No. 218425, September 27, 2017, 841 SCRA 165, 175.
24 Id.
166
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
_______________
167
_______________
168
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
_______________
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
_______________
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
_______________
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