G.R. No. 123325 March 31, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO CARIO a.k.a. “ENTENG,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alberto Cario was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the killing of Rolando B. Sobreo on June 7, 1994. The prosecution presented Arlene Sobreo (victim’s wife), who heard a shot and saw the accused carrying a “sumpak” (improvised shotgun) near the crime scene. Eyewitness Roberto Maxwell testified that he saw the accused, whom he recognized from the market, shoot the victim at close range while they were facing each other. Dr. Regalado Sosa, the City Health Officer, conducted an autopsy and concluded the cause of death was shock from massive internal hemorrhage due to a gunshot wound fired from about two feet away, with powder burns present. The defense presented accused-appellant, who claimed the victim was a known toughie who had lost money gambling, blamed the accused, and assaulted him earlier. He alleged that later, upon hearing the victim utter a threatening remark (“hindi na ako sisikatan ng araw”), he grabbed the victim’s gun lying on a bench, a struggle ensued, and the gun accidentally went off, killing the victim. The trial court found the prosecution’s version credible, appreciated treachery, and considered the accused’s flight as evidence of guilt.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of Murder, specifically in giving full credence to the prosecution witnesses, disregarding the defense’s theory, and finding the evidence sufficient to prove treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court MODIFIED the trial court’s decision. It found the accused-appellant guilty of Homicide, not Murder. The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution eyewitness, Roberto Maxwell, noting that delays in giving a statement to the police and failure to help the victim do not necessarily impair credibility. The Court rejected the accused’s claim of self-defense or accident as inconsistent and uncorroborated. However, the Court found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven. The prosecution evidence did not establish how the attack commenced; the eyewitness only saw the accused and victim facing each other before the shot, and the accused’s version suggested a sudden grab for a gun. Without proof that the accused employed means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself, treachery cannot be presumed. Thus, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced accused-appellant to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor medium as minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. The order to indemnify the heirs with P50,000.00 and pay P28,000.00 for funeral expenses was affirmed.