G.R. No. 131924 ; December 26, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO CORTEZ and GERRY ESPAÑA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Carlito Cortez and Gerry España, along with two John Does, were charged with the murder of Dominador Bislig. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of M/Sgt. Estefanio Anobling. He testified that on the night of August 20, 1992, in Cagayan de Oro City, he observed the four accused acting suspiciously, exchanging glances and signals while watching the victim. Later, he saw Cortez and España hold Bislig by his coat, after which Cortez stabbed him. Anobling chased the assailants and later, with a barangay official, apprehended Cortez and España at a nearby house. The autopsy revealed the victim died from massive hemopneumothorax due to stab wounds.
The defense presented alibi. Cortez claimed he was asleep in his brother’s house near the crime scene and was only awakened by the commotion. España asserted he had arrived at the house to fetch Cortez for their duties as barangay tanods. The trial court found the prosecution witness credible, convicted both appellants of murder, and sentenced them to life imprisonment with damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants of murder, and if the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were sufficiently proven.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of M/Sgt. Anobling’s credibility, noting his straightforward and consistent testimony, which detailed the events from the surveillance to the stabbing and pursuit. Factual findings of trial courts on witness credibility are generally binding on appeal.
However, the Court found that the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information were not proven with moral certainty. For treachery to qualify the killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed the attack was frontal and the victim was held, but there was no clear showing that this method was consciously chosen to render the victim defenseless. The holding could have been merely to facilitate the stabbing, not to ensure treachery. Evident premeditation was also not established, as the prosecution failed to prove the elements of planning, determination to execute the act, and sufficient lapse of time between the plan and its execution. The accused’s prior surveillance and signals indicated premeditation but not the “evident” degree required by law.
Since the killing was attended by neither qualifying circumstance, it constituted homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate prison term of 8 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to 14 years, 10 months, and 20 days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were sustained.