G.R. No. 118649 March 9, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME REYES y AROGANSIA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jaime Reyes y Arogansia was convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The prosecution evidence established that on February 15, 1990, around 7:00 PM, the victim Meynardo “Jun Boy” Altobar, Jr. was with witnesses Iluminado Broas and Joel Apundar in front of a store. Appellant, wearing a lady’s stocking mask, sunglasses, and a cap, approached and asked the victim, “Ikaw ba si Jun Boy?” Upon the victim’s nod, appellant immediately pulled out a gun from under his armpit and shot the victim in the neck. Appellant attempted a second shot, but Broas pushed the victim aside. Appellant’s gun jammed on a third attempt, after which he fled. The victim died from the gunshot wound. Witness Manolito Manuel testified he saw appellant, after the shooting, remove his mask and board a tricycle. Appellant interposed an alibi, claiming he was at a cockpit in Parañaque, 85-90 kilometers away, at the time of the crime. This was refuted by rebuttal witnesses Serafin Nepomuceno and Eleodoro Anibersaryo, who testified they saw appellant in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, near the crime scene, around 5:30 PM on the same day.

ISSUE

The issues raised by appellant were: (1) whether treachery attended the killing; (2) whether evident premeditation was present; (3) whether nocturnity was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance; and (4) whether the prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the civil liability and the appreciation of circumstances. The Court ruled that treachery was present because the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. The act of asking the victim’s name was immediately followed by the shooting, leaving no opportunity for the victim to react. Evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no evidence of the time when appellant determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating his determination, or a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution. Nocturnity was not considered a generic aggravating circumstance as it was not shown that appellant deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the crime; moreover, it was absorbed by treachery. Appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt through the positive identification by eyewitnesses, which prevailed over his weak alibi. The Court modified the awarded damages, ordering appellant to pay the heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P90,000.00 as compensatory damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as actual litigation expenses.