G.R. No. L-5369 March 23, 1953
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eusebio Fajardo, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of January 1, 1945, Leoncia Pañganiban witnessed the killing of her father, Lucio Pañganiban. She testified that at about 3 a.m., she came down from their house after hearing her father’s call for help. In the yard, she saw the appellant, Eusebio Fajardo, face to face with her father. Fajardo told Lucio, “You must come along because the Huks want you,” to which Lucio replied, “I cannot go with you even if you kill me in the presence of my daughter.” Suddenly, six men appeared, and Fajardo ordered them to bind Lucio. Leoncia tried to stop them by embracing her father, but they forcibly separated her upon Fajardo’s order. Lucio then clutched a pole but was easily removed. Fajardo then ordered his companions to beat Lucio, after which, while Lucio was being held by two men, Fajardo shot him with a pistol. One of the assailants, Rosendo Manala, also shot Leoncia, hitting her in the cheek. Leoncia identified Fajardo and four of his companions, stating they had frequented her father’s house during the Japanese occupation. She did not report the incident until October 1948, explaining she was afraid and was advised by her brother to keep quiet due to the prevalent conditions of peace and order in Central Luzon at the time. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Fajardo was at home attending to his sick father, corroborated by a quack doctor, Feliciana Calderon. The trial court convicted Fajardo of homicide, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, finding that the killing was qualified by treachery, constituting murder, and aggravated by nighttime.

ISSUE

Whether the crime committed is homicide or murder, specifically, whether the killing was qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the defendant guilty of murder. The Court concurred with the Solicitor General that the crime was murder, not homicide, as the trial court found. The Court held that treachery was present because Fajardo, with six armed companions, attacked an unarmed man and his daughter, employing means that directly and specifically ensured the execution of the crime with little or no risk to themselves. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime was also present, with no mitigating circumstance to offset it. The proper penalty would have been death, but due to insufficient votes for the extreme punishment, the next lower penalty was imposed. The defendant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000, and to pay the costs.