People vs. Benjamin Petaluna and Abundio Binundo

People vs.
Benjamin Petaluna and Abundio Binundo

G.R. No. 187048 January 23, 2013
FACTS:
On 11 June 1996, appellants were charged with the murder of Pablo before the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu. On arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded with the
prosecution and the defense presenting their respective witnesses. The prosecution presented
sixteen-year old Romeo Pialago (Romeo), who was with Pablo at the time of the incident, and
Dr. Dympna Aguilar (Dr. Aguilar), Municipal Health Officer of the Barili District Hospital. On the
other hand, the appellants themselves and the father of appellant Abundio, Teofilo Binondo
(Teofilo), appeared for the defense.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that on 30 April 1996, Romeo and Pablo watched a
cockfight during the fiesta of Barangay Lamak, Barili, Cebu. On their way home at about five
o'clock in the afternoon, Pablo, followed by the appellants, with the young Romeo behind them,
walked along the road of Sitio Liki, BarangayMayana, Barili, Cebu. Romeo, who knew appellants
because they used to pass by his house, noticed them whispering to each other. He saw the
appellants place their arms on Pablo's shoulder, after which they struck Pablo with stones each
of which was as big as the size of a fist. Pablo pleaded the appellants to stop but they did not.
When Pablo fell to the ground, Benjamin smashed his head with a stone as big as Pablo's head.
Afterwards, appellants dragged him downhill towards the farm of one Efren Torion (Efren) in
Sitio Liki. Romeo did not know what happened next because he ran to seek help. He went to the
house of Espiridion Presbitero (Pideon), the barangay captain of Mayana. Pideon, in turn,
coordinated with a certain Simo, the barangay captain of Bagacay. Romeo escorted Pideon and
Simo to the place where the incident took place but Pablo was no longer there. They went to the
house of appellant Abundio at Barangay Cangundo but the appellant was not there. The two
captains then proceeded to the house of appellant Benjamin, who accompanied them to the farm
of Efren. There they found the body of Pablo, which Dr. Aguilar later examined.
Before the court, Dr. Aguilar testified that Pablo sustained eleven (11) wounds caused by blunt
instrument(s) like stone(s). There were blood clots in the cranium and meninges. The death,
according to her autopsy report, which she identified in court to have been prepared and signed
by her, was caused by "cerebral hemorrhage due to laceration and contusion of the head.
Appellants maintain that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not attendant in the
commission of the crime considering that there was no element of surprise when Pablo was
attacked. Pablo had the opportunity to defend himself. Appellant Benjamin, in his Supplemental
Brief, further argued that even if there was suddenness of the attack, Pablo could have chosen
to retreat.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not there was treachery in the commission of the crime.
2. Whether or not the accused committed murder.
HELD:
The court sustains the conviction of both appellants.
The crime committed was murder.
To be convicted of murder, the following must be established: (1) a person was killed; (2) the
accused killed him; (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor
infanticide. Appellants maintain that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not attendant
in the commission of the crime considering that there was no element of surprise when Pablo
was attacked. Pablo had the opportunity to defend himself.
Appellant Benjamin, in his Supplemental Brief, further argued that even if there was suddenness
of the attack, Pablo could have chosen to retreat.
The court is not convinced.
We have time and again declared that "[t]he essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden
attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to
escape," and that it may still exist even if the attack is frontal so long as the same is sudden and
unexpected.
In this case, it was clear that the elderly victim had no inkling of the impending danger against
him. The attack was sudden notwithstanding the prior act of placing the assailants' arms on the
shoulder of the victim because such was done in a friendly manner.

People vs. Benjamin Petaluna and Abundio Binundo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Benjamin Petaluna and Abundio Binundo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Benjamin Petaluna and Abundio Binundo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

Benjamin Petaluna and Abundio Binundo

The crime committed was murder.

The court is not convinced.

You might also like