In People v. Bajar, the Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction of Alejandro Bajar for the death of his father-in-law. Despite Bajar’s claim of self-defense, the Court found his testimony unsubstantiated and upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitness accounts from Bajar’s wife and daughters. The presence of treachery and aggravating circumstances, such as dwelling and disregard of the victim’s age, played a crucial role in the decision, leading to the imposition of the death penalty, which was later commuted to reclusion perpetua due to the abolition of the death penalty. This case underscores the weight given to credible eyewitness testimony and the application of aggravating circumstances in parricide cases.

When Trust is Broken: Familial Betrayal and the Price of Unprovoked Violence

The case revolves around the tragic death of Aquilio Tiwanak, an 85-year-old man, at the hands of his son-in-law, Alejandro Bajar. On the fateful night of August 16, 1999, Bajar, heavily intoxicated, went to Tiwanak’s residence in search of his wife, leading to a violent confrontation. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Bajar acted in self-defense, as he claimed, or if his actions constituted murder, aggravated by treachery and other circumstances.

The prosecution presented a compelling narrative, primarily through the testimonies of Bajar’s wife and daughters, who witnessed the brutal attack. Their accounts painted a picture of Bajar stealthily entering Tiwanak’s house and hacking him with a bolo while he was resting. Ana Bajar Rabor, one of the daughters, recounted seeing her father attack her grandfather, who was lying on his bed. She tried to intervene but was unable to prevent the fatal injuries. The Court placed significant weight on these eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing that no wife or daughter would falsely accuse their husband or father unless the crime was true.

Bajar, on the other hand, claimed that he acted in self-defense after Tiwanak allegedly attacked him with a piece of lumber. However, the Court found his self-defense claim unconvincing and unsubstantiated. By invoking self-defense, Bajar assumed the responsibility of proving its essential elements: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. The Court found that Bajar failed to meet this burden. In fact, evidence indicated that he was the aggressor. Since the element of unlawful aggression from the victim was absent, Bajar’s plea of self-defense crumbled.

The Court also delved into the aggravating circumstances surrounding Tiwanak’s death. Treachery was a key factor, as Bajar’s attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the elderly Tiwanak no chance to defend himself. As highlighted in People v. Aquino, the presence of treachery necessitates a deliberate and conscious adoption of means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the attacker. The elements of treachery were met here when Alejandro attacked the victim while he was resting.

Dwelling was also considered an aggravating factor, as the crime occurred in Tiwanak’s home, violating the sanctity and privacy of his abode. Disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of age was also present, given the vast age difference between Bajar and his 85-year-old father-in-law. The alternative circumstance of relationship was also duly considered, emphasizing the familial tie between the perpetrator and the victim. With these factors established, the Court found Bajar guilty of murder, further highlighting that even with one aggravating circumstance, the higher penalty of death may be applied.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. With the attendance of the generic aggravating circumstances of dwelling, disregard of the respect due to the offended party by reason of age, and relationship without any mitigating circumstance to offset them, the imposition of the death penalty is justified pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code

In terms of damages, the Court modified the trial court’s decision. While the initial award of burial expenses was removed due to lack of substantiating receipts, the Court awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 to the victim’s heirs. Moral damages of P50,000 were also awarded, as the violent death undoubtedly caused emotional pain and suffering to the victim’s family, and the civil indemnity was affirmed to be P50,000 as well. Exemplary damages amounting to P25,000 were also included because of the presence of the established aggravating circumstances, particularly, the disregard of the age of the victim.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Alejandro Bajar acted in self-defense when he killed his father-in-law, Aquilio Tiwanak, or whether his actions constituted murder. The court had to determine if Bajar’s version of events justified the use of self-defense under the law.
What evidence did the prosecution present against Alejandro Bajar?	The prosecution primarily relied on the eyewitness testimonies of Bajar’s wife and daughters, who recounted seeing him attack Tiwanak with a bolo while he was resting. Their detailed and consistent accounts were crucial in establishing Bajar’s guilt.
What was Alejandro Bajar’s defense?	Bajar claimed he acted in self-defense, alleging that Tiwanak attacked him first with a piece of lumber. He asserted that he only used his hunting knife to defend himself from Tiwanak’s aggression.
What is “unlawful aggression,” and why is it important for self-defense claims?	Unlawful aggression is the cornerstone of self-defense; it requires that the victim initiated an unprovoked attack, placing the accused in imminent danger. Without it, a claim of self-defense cannot be credibly invoked under the law.
What aggravating circumstances were considered in the case?	The Court considered several aggravating circumstances, including treachery, dwelling, disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of age, and the relationship between the accused and the victim. These factors contributed to the imposition of a harsher penalty.
Why was the award for burial expenses modified?	The trial court’s award for burial expenses was modified because the prosecution failed to provide receipts or other concrete evidence to substantiate the claimed expenses. In lieu of this, the Supreme Court instead granted temperate damages, recognizing that the family likely incurred expenses, even without formal documentation.
How did the court address the fact that the defendant was intoxicated?	The court found that while Bajar was intoxicated, there was no evidence to prove that his intoxication was habitual or intentional. Consequently, it was not considered as either an aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case.
How were damages applied in this case?	The Supreme Court awarded civil indemnity amounting to P50,000.00, moral damages amounting to P50,000.00, temperate damages of P25,000.00 for burial expenses, and P25,000.00 for exemplary damages.

The Bajar case serves as a reminder of the importance of credible witness testimony and the legal consequences of violence, especially within families. While the death penalty was initially imposed, its subsequent abolition in the Philippines means that Bajar will serve a lengthy prison sentence. The case underscores the heavy burden on defendants claiming self-defense to prove each element convincingly.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003