View full case

PEOPLE v. MELCHOR REAL Y BARTOLAY

FACTS:

This case involves an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Masbate, Masbate, in Criminal Case No. 1606 finding the appellant guilty of murder. The appellant was charged with the murder of Edgardo Corpuz, who he hacked with a sharp bolo, causing an injury that led to the victim's death. The incident occurred on March 17, 1978, at the public market of Aroroy, Masbate, during a heated argument between the appellant and the victim over the right to use a market table to display their fish. The argument was pacified by the Municipal Mayor, Moreno de la Rosa, but shortly after, the victim raised his voice and uttered provocative words towards the appellant. In response, the appellant started sharpening his bolo while murmuring to himself. When the victim turned his back towards the appellant, the latter hacked him on the nape, causing him to collapse. The victim was rushed to a medical clinic and identified the appellant as his attacker before eventually dying from his injuries. The appellant admitted his guilt but claimed that he hacked the victim out of humiliation and anger. The court convicted the appellant of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of P30,000.00 and costs. The appellant appealed the decision arguing that the crime committed was homicide, not murder, and that he was entitled to the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and vindication of a grave offense. The Court affirmed the decision but modified the offense to homicide instead of murder and increased the indemnity to be paid to the victim's heirs to P50,000.00. The Court also recognized the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation but offset it with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. Thus, the appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the offense committed is murder or homicide.

  2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation and vindication of a grave offense.

  3. Whether the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion is present in the case.

RULING:

  1. The court ruled that the offense committed is homicide. The sudden attack of the appellant on the victim was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the appellant because of the provocative act of the victim. The attack came in the course of an altercation and after the appellant had sharpened his bolo in full view of the victim. Hence, treachery or alevosia is not present.

  2. The court held that the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The berating and humiliating act of the victim in a market place, in full view and within hearing distance of many people, was enough to produce passion and obfuscation in the appellant. However, the appellant cannot simultaneously claim the mitigating circumstance of vindication for a grave offense, which arises from the same facts or motive.

  3. The court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion cannot be appreciated against the appellant. It was found that the previous offenses for which the appellant was convicted, ill-treatment by deed and grave threats, fall under the same title of the Revised Penal Code as the offense of homicide. Therefore, the appropriate aggravating circumstance to be appreciated is recidivism, not reiteracion.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was coolly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. However, if the attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim, treachery is not present.

  • Mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and vindication of a grave offense cannot be simultaneously appreciated if they arise from the same facts or motive.

  • Reiteracion can only be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance if the previous offenses committed by the accused are different in kind from the offense for which he is currently charged and if the prior offenses are punishable by an equal or greater penalty. Reincidencia, on the other hand, requires that the previous offense be embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.