G.R. No. 150723 July 11, 2006
RAMONITO MANABAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On October 11, 1996, Joselito Bautista, who had been drinking, went to a bank ATM to withdraw money for his daughter’s medicine. The machine retained his card after he entered a wrong PIN. The bank security guard, Ramonito Manaban, advised him to return the next day. Bautista became enraged and began kicking and pounding the ATM. Manaban attempted to pacify him and even fired a warning shot. Bautista then confronted Manaban, and after an exchange of words, Manaban shot Bautista in the back, causing fatal injuries. Manaban was charged with murder.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s conviction of petitioner Ramonito Manaban for the crime of homicide, not murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide. The legal logic centered on the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) required for murder. Treachery demands that the means of execution be deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant from any defense the victim might make. Here, the shooting occurred during a sudden, heated confrontation. The evidence established that Bautista aggressively confronted Manaban after the warning shot. The attack was not preconceived or executed in a manner that deprived Bautista of any chance to defend himself; it was a spontaneous act arising from the escalating altercation. Therefore, the crime committed was homicide, defined as killing a person without any qualifying circumstance. The Court also modified the damages awarded, deleting the grant for loss of earning capacity due to insufficient proof of the victim’s actual income, and awarded temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for burial expenses lacking full receipt documentation.