G.R. No. 28702 , March 12, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIO ABRIL, ET AL., defendants. PEDRO PAMPOLINA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the night of March 14, 1927, in Calauan, Laguna, Hermogenes Punsalan was shot and killed. The prosecution’s principal witness, Brigido Refran, testified that he was walking home when he overtook accused Julio Abril and Pedro Pampolina. After inquiring about Punsalan’s whereabouts, the two accused, together with Refran and another companion, later met Punsalan riding a carabao. Abril stated they were looking for him, and Punsalan suggested they return. Pampolina then joined Punsalan on the carabao, and Abril followed on foot. Shortly after, Refran heard gunshots, looked back, and saw both Abril and Pampolina shooting at Punsalan. He saw them flee, and noticed Pampolina had a revolver in his hip pocket. Punsalan was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds. The autopsy revealed bullets from a .45 caliber double-action revolver, while empty shells found at the scene were from a .45 caliber automatic revolver. Only Pampolina appealed his conviction for homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Pedro Pampolina of homicide based on the evidence presented.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Brigido Refran credible, despite minor inconsistencies with his prior affidavit, which he explained were due to fear of the accused before their arrest. The physical evidence corroborated his account: two different types of firearms were used (a double-action and an automatic revolver), supporting the conclusion that both accused, not just Abril, participated in the shooting. Pampolina’s possession of a revolver was witnessed, and his failure to report the crime or surrender for five days was considered indicative of guilt.

The Court agreed with the trial court’s classification of the crime as homicide, not murder. While the information alleged treachery, the prosecution failed to prove conclusively that the assailants employed means to ensure the execution without risk to themselves, as the eyewitness did not see the inception of the attack. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present, as two armed men attacked the victim. This was offset by the mitigating circumstance of the defendants’ scant education. Thus, the penalty of *reclusion temporal* in its medium degree (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day) was correctly imposed. The judgment was affirmed.