BUG-ATAN V PEOPLE

GR 175195
Sep. 15, 2010

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 25, 2006 which
upheld the Judgment dated September 20, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City finding petitioners
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.

FACTS
For the death of Pastor Papauran (victim), Norman Maramara (Maramara) was indicted for murder, and his
information for murder was filed on June 9,1993, docketed as Criminal Case No. DU-3721. He was thereafter
convicted on July 19, 1993.

After pleading NOT GUILTY but before his trial, Maramara moved and was allowed by the trial court to enter into
a plea bargaining with the prosecution and the victim's next of kin. Accordingly, Maramara, upon re-arraignment,
pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of homicide, a crime necessarily included in the charge of murder. However, before
he was indicted or thereabout, Maramara executed an extrajudicial confession wherein he admitted shooting the victim
to death and implicated as his co-conspirators herein petitioners Gregorio Manatad (Manatad), Virgilio Bug-atan
(Bug-atari) and Bernie Labandero (Labandero).

Petitioners, when arraigned, pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued.

RTC: Petitioners guilty of Homicide

CA: affirmed RTC decision

SC: Guilty of Murder, not Homicide. Mamara’s plea bargain not applicable to herein petitioners.

ISSUE
Proceedural
 That the trial court hastily heard and approved a plea bargain motion in the afternoon leading to accused
Mamara’s immediate conviction on the same day.
 That the trial court erred in concluding that there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances to
appreciate despite Maramara's confession to the murder of the victim.

Substantive
 Whether Maramara is a credible witness
 Whether conspiracy was proven
 Whether the guilt of petitioners was proven beyond reasonable doubt

RULING
Procedural
 The plea bargain was validly acted upon despite the fact that all the proceedings, i.e. arraignment, plea
bargaining and conviction, occurred on a single day.
 Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court 1, which authorizes plea bargain for a lesser offense in a criminal

1
Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to lesser offense. - At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed
by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the
accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or
information is necessary.
 case, is explicit on how and when a plea bargain may be allowed.
 As clearly worded, there is nothing in the law which expressly or impliedly prohibits the trial court from
allowing an accused to change his plea, on a plea bargain, immediately after a previous plea of not guilty. In
approving the plea bargaining agreement, the trial court undoubtedly took into consideration the timeliness
of the plea bargaining and its compliance with the requirements of the law.
 Neither did the Court see any error in the trial court's holding that there were no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances to appreciate even with Maramara's confession of murder for the obvious reason that
introduction of evidence became no longer necessary after entering a plea of guilty.

Substantive

Evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court.

Conspiracy was duly proven.

 there is sufficient evidence of conspiracy as convincing as the evidence of the participation of each of the
petitioners. The records teem with circumstances correctly outlined by the trial court clearly indicating the
collective and individual acts of the petitioners which reveal their common purpose to assault and liquidate
the victim.

Defense of alibi and denial was correctly rejected and the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the presence
of treachery and evident premeditation.

Crime committed and proper penalty

 While the Decision of the trial court recognized the guilt of the petitioners for the offense as charged to have
been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court went on to hold them guilty to a lesser offense of
homicide citing the Court's ruling in People v. Tapalla2
 The case of Tapalla, invoked by the trial court as authority in arriving at such conclusion, is not applicable
in the present case. The information in Criminal Case No. DU-3721 indicting Maramara alone of murder is
distinct and separate from the information charging petitioners for the same offense in the instant case.
 Moreover, Maramara was neither charged as co-accused of petitioners nor of conspiring to commit a crime
in either case. As correctly observed by the trial court, Maramara was only a principal witness in this case
though admittedly a conspirator in the commission of the crime.
 These circumstances provide a distinction from the Tapalla case where the accused Tingzon, who pleaded
guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, was a co- accused in the same information charging him along with
others of conspiring to commit murder.
 As the evidence stands, the crime committed by petitioners is murder in view of the attending circumstances
of treachery and evident premeditation.
 In the present case, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation will be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance warranting the imposition of the penalty of death in the absence of any mitigating
circumstance.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioners Gregorio Manatad,
Virgilio Bug-atan and Bernie Labandero are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder, not homicide,
qualified by treachery, and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Petitioners are ORDERED to pay the heirs of victim Pastor Papauran the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against

2
In that case, the Court declared that if the prosecution accepts from any of the defendants charged with conspiracy in the commission of a crime,
a plea of guilty to a lesser offense included in the one alleged in the information, such acceptance will benefit his co-defendants.
petitioners.