GR 145166; (October, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145166 ; October 8, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ALBERTO ROMERO y BARBACINA and PATROCINIO ROMERO y NEO, appellants.
FACTS
The appellants, driver Patrocinio Romero and his helper Alberto Romero, were charged with Murder for the killing of Erick Trinidad. The incident originated when the appellants’ truck hit the roof of the Trinidad family’s house. Jefferson Trinidad and his brother Jayson chased the truck and confronted the appellants. An altercation ensued, during which Alberto stabbed Jefferson. Subsequently, Erick Trinidad arrived in a jeep. Upon alighting, he was attacked; Alberto stabbed him in the back, and Patrocinio struck him with a lead pipe. Erick died from his injuries. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Jefferson Trinidad and Ofelia Santiago, who positively identified the appellants under adequate illumination from a streetlight. The defense claimed self-defense, alleging they were attacked by a mob.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitnesses credible and rejected the defense of denial and alibi. The witnesses had no ill motive to falsely testify, and their accounts were consistent and corroborated by the medico-legal findings. However, the Court ruled that treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellants consciously adopted a mode of attack specifically intended to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves from any defense Erick might make. The attack on Erick, who had just arrived and alighted from his vehicle, arose from the same tumultuous confrontation. The manner of assault did not indicate a deliberate and calculated execution. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was absent. Consequently, the appellants are guilty of the lesser crime of Homicide. The penalty is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.