G.R. No. 118824 July 5, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO GARCIA alias ROMEO ALCANTARA y GANDOL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Jose Zaldy Asiado was found dead on April 3, 1988, in Legazpi City, having sustained multiple fatal stab wounds. His common-law wife, Marlyn Asiado, initially identified her first cousin, Romeo Garcia, as the assailant in an affidavit, leading to the filing of a murder Information. The accused fled but was apprehended five years later. At trial, the prosecution presented Joseph Ayhon, who testified that early on the morning of the incident, he saw Marlyn panic-stricken and heard her shout that Garcia had stabbed the victim. Ayhon approached the victim’s dwelling, heard a voice saying “Buhay ka pa,” and through an opening, saw the accused on top of the recumbent victim. The victim’s mother, Angustia Asiado, corroborated that Marlyn had identified Garcia as the killer.
The defense consisted of denial and mistaken identity. Accused-appellant claimed to be Romeo Alcantara y Gandol, not Romeo Garcia, and asserted he did not know the victim or Marlyn. The trial court rejected this defense, crediting the positive identification by Ayhon and Asiado, who detailed the accused’s family background to establish his true identity as Romeo Garcia. The court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of murder, or if the crime committed was homicide, and whether aggravating circumstances were properly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The positive identification by eyewitness Joseph Ayhon, who saw the accused atop the victim, and the corroborative testimony of Angustia Asiado, who established the accused’s identity as Romeo Garcia, sufficiently proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of denial and alibi was correctly rejected for being weak against positive identification.
However, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation alleged in the Information were not proven. Treachery could not be established because Ayhon did not witness how the assault began, a requisite for showing the mode of attack was deliberately adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailant. Evident premeditation was absent as there was no evidence showing the time the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifesting this determination, and sufficient lapse of time to reflect. Thus, the crime is homicide, not murder.
The generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling was properly appreciated, as it was established during trial without defense objection. Nighttime, however, was not aggravating, as there was no proof it was purposely sought to facilitate the crime. With dwelling as the sole aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty for homicide (reclusion temporal) is imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.