G.R. No. 233205 June 26, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. SPO2 EDGARDO MENIL Y BONGKIT, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant SPO2 Edgardo Menil was charged with Murder for the fatal shooting of Edwin Bagaslao. The prosecution’s evidence established that in the early morning of December 28, 1993, at a restaurant in Butuan City, Menil, after a prior altercation with the victim’s common-law wife, Cynthia Rose Coloma, suddenly shot Bagaslao from behind as the victim was walking on the sidewalk. Eyewitness Ricardo Torralba corroborated this account, testifying he saw Menil shoot the victim from a distance of about one meter before fleeing. The victim died from a gunshot wound to the head.
The defense presented a different version. Menil claimed he was accosted by the victim on a staircase, a struggle for his service firearm ensued, and a shot was fired accidentally during the grapple, causing Bagaslao’s death. He denied any intent to kill. The Regional Trial Court convicted Menil of Murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the awarded damages.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in affirming Menil’s conviction for Murder, specifically in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal. It upheld the finding of guilt but downgraded the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts, giving weight to the consistent and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified Menil as the shooter. His defense of denial and claim of an accidental shooting during a struggle were deemed unconvincing and insufficient to overcome the prosecution’s evidence.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstances were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the safety of the aggressor from any defense the victim might make. The suddenness of an attack alone does not constitute treachery if it is not shown that the mode of attack was consciously chosen for such purpose. Here, the shooting occurred after a prior heated argument and a pacification attempt. The circumstances did not indubitably show that Menil deliberately employed a method to render Bagaslao defenseless. Evident premeditation was also not established, as there was no evidence of sufficient time between the determination to commit the crime and its execution to reflect a cold and persistent resolution. Consequently, without any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Menil was sentenced to 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, and ordered to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.