G.R. No. 109800. March 12, 1996.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO BAUTISTA y NIELES, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Wilfredo Bautista, a security guard, was convicted of murder for shooting and killing Alfonso Davila, a PAL flight steward. The incident occurred on April 2, 1992, at the PAL Inflight Center in Pasay City. Davila, attempting to enter Gate 1, was stopped by fellow guard Gayak Usman for lacking a PAL sticker. A heated argument ensued after Davila showed his ID. Bautista, who was assigned nearby, intervened, took Usman’s shotgun, and after an exchange of words with Davila, went to the rear of Davila’s car, cocked the firearm, approached Davila, and shot him in the head at close range, causing instant death.
On appeal, Bautista admitted the killing but argued he should only be liable for homicide. He claimed he acted under a mistake of fact, believing Davila was reaching for a gun, and that he lost his composure after Davila slapped Usman and uttered offensive remarks. He invoked mitigating circumstances and incomplete self-defense. The prosecution maintained the killing was qualified by treachery.
ISSUE
Whether the killing constituted murder qualified by treachery or simple homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision and convicted Bautista of homicide, not murder. The Court held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established. For treachery to exist, the execution of the attack must employ means that ensure the victim’s inability to defend himself, and this method must be consciously adopted by the offender. The altercation between Davila and Usman was heated and verbal, with Bautista directly intervening and exchanging words with Davila. This sequence of events, where the victim was aware of a potential conflict with Bautista, negated the suddenness and unexpectedness required for treachery. The attack, while fatal, arose from a prior confrontation and was not executed in a manner that deliberately and consciously guaranteed the assailant’s safety from any defense. However, Bautista’s claim of self-defense or justifying circumstances failed, as he did not prove unlawful aggression from Davila directed at him. His inconsistent claims—acting under a mistake of fact versus passion and obfuscation—were unsupported by evidence, as no weapon was found in Davila’s car. Thus, he is liable for the intentional killing absent any qualifying circumstance, constituting homicide. The penalty was reduced accordingly.