G.R. No. 153538; May 19, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LOLITO ESTOYA, appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that on the evening of March 29, 1997, in Barangay Eli, La Libertad, Negros Oriental, several individuals, including the victim Bemboy Cerna, were eating in a house when gunshots were heard. An eyewitness, Lolito Garsula, opened a window and saw appellant Lolito Estoya running while holding a long gun. Estoya then aimed the firearm at Garsula’s direction, fired another shot, and exclaimed “Withdraw Bay.” The victim, Bemboy Cerna, was found lying in a pool of blood and was later pronounced dead from two fatal gunshot wounds. The ballistic report indicated the use of a high-powered firearm. The prosecution also presented evidence of a prior threat made by Estoya against Cerna.
In his defense, appellant interposed alibi and denial. He claimed that at the time of the incident, he was in Emporium, Barangay Owakan, Jimalalud, Negros Oriental, which was approximately 20 kilometers away, engaged in small-scale selling. This was corroborated by two witnesses, a barangay captain and a CAFGU member, who testified that Estoya was with them throughout that night and never left the place.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant Lolito Estoya of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was the perpetrator of the killing, thereby rejecting his defense of alibi. The positive identification by an eyewitness who had no ill motive to testify falsely was deemed credible and sufficient to overcome alibi, especially since the distance between the crime scene and appellant’s alleged location was not shown to be physically impossible to traverse.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven with the same degree of certainty as the crime itself. For treachery to qualify a killing as murder, the prosecution must establish that the means of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to the assailant from any defense the victim might make. The evidence merely showed that the attack was sudden, but it failed to detail how the assault was commenced or executed. The witness did not see the actual moment the fatal shots were fired at the victim. The suddenness of an attack, without more, does not automatically constitute treachery. Since the prosecution failed to prove the specific manner of attack that would clearly demonstrate the victim’s inability to defend himself, treachery cannot be appreciated. Consequently, appellant is guilty only of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty is reduced, and the civil indemnity is adjusted accordingly.