G.R. Nos. L-35123-24 July 25, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUDY TIONGSON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Rudy Tiongson, was detained for Attempted Homicide in the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro. On October 26, 1971, he escaped with two other detainees. During the escape, he killed the jail guard, Patrolman Zosimo Gelera, inside the municipal building. Later, while being pursued, he also killed PC Constable Aurelio Canela. Consequently, Tiongson was charged with two counts of Murder, with allegations of treachery and several aggravating circumstances. Upon arraignment, Tiongson, assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty to both charges. The trial court did not immediately sentence him but required the prosecution to present evidence. After the presentation, the court convicted him of Murder and imposed the death penalty for each count, leading to this automatic review.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the trial court’s acceptance of the guilty plea was proper; (2) whether the killings were qualified by treachery to constitute Murder; and (3) whether the aggravating circumstances were correctly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide for both killings. On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in accepting the plea. The established norm requires that when a capital offense is involved, the court must ensure the accused fully understands the consequences of a guilty plea. Here, the trial judge correctly complied by not relying solely on the plea but by requiring the prosecution to present evidence, thereby establishing the circumstances of the crime and aiding the Supreme Court’s review.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that treachery was not proven. For treachery to qualify a killing to Murder, the prosecution must clearly show the mode of attack was deliberately adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailant from any defense by the victim. For the killing of Gelera, no eyewitness testified to the manner of the attack; the prosecution witnesses only heard shots or saw the body afterward. For the killing of Canela, the evidence showed a chance encounter during a pursuit, not a deliberate, treacherous assault. The qualifying circumstance of treachery must be proven as clearly as the crime itself, which was not done here.
Regarding the aggravating circumstances, the Court found that only the circumstance of “in contempt of or with insult to public authorities” was properly appreciated, as the victims were law enforcement officers performing their duties. Other alleged aggravating circumstances, such as evident premeditation, nocturnity, uninhabited place, and abuse of superior strength, were not proven. Evident premeditation requires proof of planning; nocturnity requires proof it was deliberately sought; an uninhabited place requires proof of a remote location intentionally chosen; and abuse of superior strength requires proof of a deliberate use of force. The evidence failed to establish these elements. Consequently, the crimes committed are two counts of Homicide, aggravated by insult to public authorities. The penalty is modified to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each count. The indemnity is increased to P30,000.00 for each victim.