G.R. No. L-29205. July 30, 1976.
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Gerardo Extra, alias Handing, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The case originated from the fatal shooting of Barrio Captain Leovigildo Saligao on June 25, 1965. Earlier that evening, Saligao sought assistance from PC soldiers at their detachment in Putingbuhangin, San Juan, Batangas, reporting that the appellant, Gerardo Extra, was threatening him with a firearm. A group of constabulary soldiers, including Sgt. Iglesias and Cpl. Rabanilla, accompanied the unarmed Saligao to the appellant’s area to peacefully inquire and settle any misunderstanding. After a futile attempt to locate the appellant at his father’s house, the group decided to leave. As they were departing, Saligao, who was walking ahead with a flashlight, suddenly shouted, “There is Gerardo Extra,” and illuminated the appellant aiming a carbine from behind a coconut tree about six meters away.
The appellant immediately fired, hitting Saligao with the first volley. The soldiers identified themselves as police authorities and fired warning shots, but the appellant responded with four more gunshots, prompting the soldiers to return fire. The wounded Saligao was rushed to a clinic where, before his death on July 4, 1965, he gave an ante-mortem statement explicitly naming Gerardo Extra as his assailant. The appellant was subsequently charged with and convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Batangas, which found treachery present in the attack. The court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder, qualified by treachery, based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court found the testimonies of the PC soldiers, particularly Cpl. Rabanilla, to be credible and consistent. They positively identified the appellant as the gunman who, without any provocation, suddenly fired upon the group from a concealed position. This account was powerfully corroborated by the dying declaration of the victim, which was properly admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule given its ante-mortem character. The declaration, made while the victim was conscious of his impending death, directly accused the appellant.
Regarding treachery, the Court ruled it was correctly appreciated. The attack was executed in a manner that ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The appellant, armed with a carbine and using a coconut tree for cover, ambushed the unarmed Saligao who was illuminated by his own flashlight. The suddenness and the method of attack, which employed means to minimize any risk to the aggressor, clearly constituted alevosia. The Court rejected the appellant’s denial and alibi, noting it was physically impossible for him to be elsewhere as he was positively identified at the scene. The judgment of the trial court was thus upheld in its entirety.