G.R. No. 95583 August 12, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGARDO WENCESLAO, DANILO WENCESLAO and OSCAR WENCESLAO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Edgardo Wenceslao, along with his brothers Danilo and Oscar, was charged with Murder for the killing of Arturo Gatmaitan on March 16, 1985, in Manila. The Information alleged conspiracy, abuse of superior strength, treachery, and evident premeditation. The case against Danilo and Oscar was archived as they were at-large. The prosecution’s version, based on eyewitness Danilo Villegas, was that at around noon, Villegas saw the three Wenceslao brothers holding Arturo, with Danilo shooting him with a “sumpak” (improvised shotgun) and Edgardo shooting him twice with a .38 caliber revolver as he fell. The victim’s father, Francisco Gatmaitan, testified that at the hospital, his dying son identified the Wenceslao brothers as his assailants. The defense version, presented by Edgardo, was that the victim and a companion approached him armed; during a struggle for the “sumpak,” it fired and hit the victim accidentally, after which Edgardo fled. He denied his brothers were present. The trial court convicted Edgardo Wenceslao of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay indemnity and damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies despite alleged inconsistencies.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not declaring that the fatal injury was accidental and inflicted in self-defense.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused when the evidence against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Assuming arguendo that the injury was not accidental and the accused was not justified, whether the trial court erred in convicting him of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modifications. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the credible eyewitness account and the dying declaration, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The medico-legal expert’s testimony on the nature and location of the wounds (a pellet wound on the chest and a gunshot wound at the back of the head) made the defense version of an accidental shooting or self-defense physically impossible, as the neck wound could not have been self-inflicted. The Court upheld the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as the attack was sudden and rendered the victim defenseless while being held. However, evident premeditation was not proven. The Court modified the damages, reducing the unproven actual damages award and setting the indemnity for death at P50,000.00 and moral damages at P50,000.00, deleting other awards. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.