People of the Philippines vs. Jefferson Bacares

Abuse of superior strength qualifies a killing to murder only when the prosecution proves that the assailant purposely and consciously sought the advantage of superior strength; mere disparity in age, gender, or size is insufficient. Circumstantial evidence may nevertheless sustain a conviction when the requisites of Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence are satisfied.

On December 19, 2013, around 7:30 a.m., Alvin Almoite went to the house of Jefferson Bacares in Cabaroan, Bacnotan, La Union to hang out. Bacares was having a drinking spree with Dong Mapili, Benjie Delena, and his brother John Bacares; Bacares’s mother, Emily Chan, was also present. The men finished drinking at 9:00 a.m., and the three companions left one by one. When only Almoite, Bacares, and Emily remained, Almoite heard Bacares whisper to his mother about his anger and intention to kill Clarita Lubian-Espero, saying, “Putang inang matandang Caling na yan, papatayin ko ang matandang yan.” Almoite knew Bacares was referring to the victim because he had witnessed the victim and Bacares’s mother argue heatedly several days earlier. Almoite then saw Bacares and his mother embrace. Thereafter, Almoite left and stayed at Florante Espero’s house, about 50 meters away, until 11:00 a.m. He returned to Bacares’s house to ask whether the others had come back, but only Emily was there.

Around 11:40 a.m. that same day, Michael Sibayan, a neighbor of the victim, was watering plants at the back of his house when he heard a loud sound from the victim’s house. He then saw Bacares come out of the victim’s house swinging a pointed metal object. Sibayan was about two meters away. He noticed that Bacares wore a light green shirt with red stains on the left portion and appeared to have blood on his hand. Bacares went to his own house. After a few minutes, Sibayan saw Bacares again, now wearing a blue shirt. They walked together toward the cooperative. When Sibayan asked why he looked worried, Bacares kept silent. At the cooperative, Bacares asked his older sister for P20.00, saying he was going somewhere.

Later that morning, Almoite went to the victim’s house and noticed that the bamboo fence at the back was damaged. He called out to the victim but received no response. His brother Dale Bryan arrived, followed by Florence Espero, the victim’s granddaughter. Florence had come from her school Christmas party and arrived around 11:50 a.m. She saw Almoite and Dale Bryan at the backyard and asked if her grandmother was home. Almoite said she was not, but Florence still knocked at the front door with no response. She proceeded to the back door and found it unlocked, with the tie used to close it appearing to be cut by a knife. Inside, she saw her grandmother unconscious and lying flat on the floor in her own blood. Florence tried to wake her and noticed stab wounds on her back. She cried for help.

PO2 Vladimir Espero, the victim’s son, arrived after being notified by his brother. He saw his mother’s body and, with his brother, brought her to Bacnotan District Hospital, where she was declared dead on arrival. PO2 Espero reported the incident to the Bacnotan Police Station. The medico-legal report stated that the cause of death was “blunt traumatic injuries of the head and chest and stab wounds at the back.” The victim’s family incurred P29,000.00 in funeral expenses and P5,000.00 in burial costs.

An Information was filed against Bacares for murder, alleging that on or about December 19, 2013, in Bacnotan, La Union, with intent to kill and with cruelty and abuse of superior strength, he attacked, assaulted, and stabbed Clarita Lubian-Espero, inflicting blunt traumatic injuries to her head and chest and stab wounds to her back, causing her death. Bacares pleaded not guilty. At trial, the prosecution presented Almoite, Sibayan, Florence, and PO2 Espero. Bacares testified in his defense, raising denial and alibi. He claimed that on December 19, 2013, around 5:00 a.m., he was at their residence with his mother Emily, who was not feeling well, and with his siblings John, Jamaica, and Jess Bacares and friends Almoite, Dong, and Delena. They had a drinking spree the night before; around 7:00 a.m. they all ate before he went to Manila. Around 8:00 a.m. he proceeded to the national highway to ride a tricycle to the town proper, and on the way he saw Sibayan and asked for a light for his cigarette. He learned of the victim’s death while in Antipolo and, after six to seven months, found out that he was a suspect. He intended to return to Cabaroan to defend himself but was warned by his mother not to do so because his life was in danger.

The RTC and the CA found that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence sufficiently established Bacares’s guilt and that abuse of superior strength qualified the killing. The prosecution witnesses positively identified Bacares, and the trial court found no ill motive on their part.

• Circumstantial Evidence: Appellant insisted that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence did not collectively constitute a clear pattern and unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that he committed the crime charged.
• Elements of Murder: Appellant argued that the lower courts gravely erred in finding him guilty of murder despite the prosecution’s failure to prove all the elements thereof.
• Denial and Alibi: Appellant maintained that the lower courts gravely erred in disregarding his defenses of denial and alibi.
• Physical Evidence and Corpus Delicti: Appellant argued that the prosecution’s failure to present as evidence the shirt he was wearing and to prove that it was stained with blood, as well as the weapon used to kill the victim, was fatal to the case.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Abuse of Superior Strength: Whether abuse of superior strength was proven as a qualifying circumstance to elevate the killing to murder.
• Defenses of Denial and Alibi: Whether the lower courts erred in disregarding appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi.
• Corpus Delicti and Physical Evidence: Whether the prosecution’s failure to present the shirt and weapon used was fatal to the case.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Yes. The prosecution’s circumstantial evidence satisfied Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules on Evidence; the circumstances formed an unbroken chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Abuse of Superior Strength: No. Abuse of superior strength was not sufficiently proven; no witness saw the killing, and there was no showing appellant purposely and consciously sought advantage of superior strength. The crime is homicide under Article 249, Revised Penal Code.
• Defenses of Denial and Alibi: No. Denial and alibi are inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification and testimony.
• Corpus Delicti and Physical Evidence: No. Corpus delicti may be proven by circumstantial evidence; the prosecution need not present the shirt or weapon to prove the fact of the crime and criminal responsibility.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court applied Section 4, Rule 133, which requires more than one circumstance, proven facts from which inferences are derived, and a combination producing conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The CA’s seven circumstances were: (1) Bacares was overheard threatening to kill the victim about two hours before her body was found; (2) Sibayan heard a thud from the victim’s house and saw Bacares leave with a pointed metal object, bloodstains on his shirt, and blood on his hand, then later change into a blue shirt; (3) the autopsy showed stab wounds and traumatic injuries; (4) Bacares fled and was apprehended only on October 14, 2015 in Antipolo City; (5) prosecution witnesses positively identified him; (6) he had motive due to prior quarrels and a threat after being accused of stealing a chicken and being threatened with incarceration over P25,000.00; and (7) the witnesses had no ill motive. The Court held these circumstances formed an unbroken chain consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence; minor inconsistencies did not affect credibility; and the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, affirmed by the CA, were entitled to deference. Thus, guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualifying Circumstance of Abuse of Superior Strength: The RTC and CA relied on the victim’s being a sexagenarian female and appellant a male in his early twenties. The Supreme Court held that abuse of superior strength requires a notorious inequality of forces and that the assailant purposely and consciously sought the advantage. It means purposely using excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available. Since no prosecution witness saw how the killing was perpetrated, the evidence did not show any conscious effort by Bacares to use his age, size, or strength. Qualifying circumstances must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, as clearly as the crime itself, beyond reasonable doubt, and cannot rest on speculation. With abuse of superior strength ruled out and no other qualifying circumstance alleged and proven, the crime was only homicide under Article 249, Revised Penal Code. The Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and modified the damages in accordance with People vs. Jugueta.
• Defenses of Denial and Alibi: Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused. Positive testimony prevails over negative testimony. Bacares’s alibi did not overcome the prosecution witnesses’ positive identification and the circumstantial evidence. His flight after the incident further indicated guilt, although flight is not an element of the crime.
• Corpus Delicti and Physical Evidence: Corpus delicti is the body, foundation, or substance of the crime; it refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not the physical body of the deceased. It may be proven by circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must establish (a) that a certain result or fact has been established, such as death, and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for it. Here, the death of the victim was proven, and the circumstances proved that Bacares caused it. The failure to present the shirt and the weapon was therefore not fatal.

• Circumstantial Evidence — Circumstantial evidence proves a fact or series of facts from which the fact in issue may be inferred. It is sufficient for conviction under Section 4, Rule 133 if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It is not weaker than direct evidence and must be assessed qualitatively, as a whole. The Court applied this to affirm Bacares’s guilt.
• Abuse of Superior Strength — A qualifying circumstance present when there is a notorious inequality of forces between victim and aggressor, with a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous to the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him. The assailant must purposely and consciously seek the advantage and deliberately intend to use it; taking advantage means purposely using excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available. It depends on age, size, and strength. The Court held it unproven because no witness saw the killing and no conscious effort to use superiority was shown.
• Qualifying Circumstances — Must be proven as clearly as the crime itself; every element must be shown beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be based on speculation. Applied to reject abuse of superior strength.
• Corpus Delicti — The body, foundation, or substance of a crime; the fact of the commission of the crime, not the physical body of the deceased. It may be proven by circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must show that a certain result or fact has been established and that some person is criminally responsible. Applied to hold that non-presentation of the shirt and weapon was not fatal.
• Denial and Alibi — Inherently weak defenses; they must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused. Positive testimony prevails over negative testimony. Applied to reject Bacares’s defenses.
• Flight as Indicative of Guilt — Flight is not an element of the crime but is indicative of guilt. The Court considered Bacares’s departure from Bacnotan and later apprehension in Antipolo City as evidence of guilt.
• Credibility of Witnesses — Minor inconsistencies and discrepancies on trivial matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses or their positive identification of the accused. Trial courts’ factual findings and credibility assessments, especially when affirmed by the CA, are deferred to absent clear showing of overlooked facts. Applied to uphold the prosecution witnesses.

• “Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.” — This states the controlling requisites for circumstantial evidence and supports the affirmance of the conviction.
• “Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.” — This defines the qualifying circumstance that the Court found unproven.
• “To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.” — This clarifies the deliberate intent required before abuse of superior strength may qualify a killing.
• “Corpus delicti is the body, foundation or substance of a crime. It refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not to the physical body of the deceased.” — This explains why the failure to present the shirt and weapon did not defeat the prosecution.

• Almojuela vs. People, 734 Phil. 636, 647 (2014) — The Court cited this for the guidelines courts must observe when faced with circumstantial evidence: act with caution, ensure essential facts are consistent with guilt, exclude every other theory, and establish guilt with certainty beyond reasonable doubt.
• People vs. Elever Jaen, G.R. No. 241946, July 29, 2019 — Cited to support that circumstantial evidence is not a weaker form of evidence and may surpass direct evidence in weight and probative force; also for the “tapestry” formulation.
• People vs. Cabtalan, 682 Phil. 164, 168 (2012) — Cited for the rule that minor inconsistencies and discrepancies on trivial matters do not affect witness credibility or positive identification.
• Medina, Jr. vs. People, 724 Phil. 226, 234-235 (2014) — Cited for deference to the trial court’s factual findings and evaluation of witness credibility, especially when affirmed by the CA.
• People vs. Peñaflor, 766 Phil. 484, 498 (2015) — Cited for the definition of corpus delicti and the rule that it may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
• People vs. Las Piñas, et al., 739 Phil. 502, 528 (2014) — Cited for the rule that alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when identity is positively ascertained.
• People vs. Roland Miraña y Alcaraz, G.R. No. 219113, April 25, 2018 — Cited for the requirement that abuse of superior strength must be purposely and consciously sought by the assailant.
• People vs. Cezar Cortez, G.R. No. 239137, December 5, 2018 — Cited for the definition of taking advantage of superior strength as purposely using excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available.
• People vs. Eugene Villanueva y Cañales, G.R. No. 218958, December 13, 2017 — Cited for the principle that abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated where no witness saw how the killing was perpetrated.
• People of the Philippines vs. Dadivo, 434 Phil. 684, 689 (2002) — Cited for the rule that a qualifying circumstance must be proven as clearly as the crime itself.
• Martiniano B. Saldua vs. People, G.R. No. 210920, December 10, 2018 — Cited for the requirement that every element of a qualifying circumstance be shown beyond reasonable doubt and not by speculation.
• People vs. Rodel Magbuhos y Diola, G.R. No. 227865, November 7, 2018 — Cited for the consequence that once abuse of superior strength is ruled out and no other qualifying circumstance is alleged and proven, the accused can only be liable for homicide.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited for the rule that in homicide, where death results and the penalty is divisible, damages should be P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

• Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules on Evidence — Provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which inferences are derived are proven, and the combination produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Applied to affirm the finding of guilt.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines homicide as killing another without any of the circumstances enumerated in the preceding article and punishes it with reclusion temporal. Applied because abuse of superior strength was not proven, reducing the crime from murder to homicide.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied in imposing the indeterminate penalty for homicide, as stated in the dispositive portion.

Justices Caguioa, Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez concurred.