G.R. No. 130965; August 22, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Restituto Cabacan, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of January 14, 1995, in Barangay Capehan, Tarlac, the victim Nestor Vibas and the accused-appellant Restituto Cabacan were involved in an altercation during a drinking session at a friend’s house. The victim punched the appellant, and they were pacified. The victim was brought home. Later that night, while the victim was seated on the roadside in front of his house, his wife Susana Vibas heard him shout. She rushed towards him and, from a distance of about four paces, saw the appellant making a thrusting motion at her husband’s back, causing him to fall. She initially thought he was pushed, but later discovered blood oozing from his side. The victim was brought to the hospital but died on the way from a single stab wound at the back. The appellant fled on a bicycle. The police investigation led to the appellant’s apprehension, and his mother surrendered the bladed weapon used. The appellant denied the charge, claiming the victim attacked him with fist blows as he passed by, and he fled when people approached. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding that treachery attended the killing and in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witness, Susana Vibas, who positively identified the appellant as the assailant. Her testimony was corroborated by medical findings and the surrender of the weapon. The appellant’s denial and version of events were found unconvincing, and his flight indicated guilt. However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The attack was not shown to be deliberately adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailant. The prior altercation between the parties forewarned the victim of possible danger, and the attack from behind appeared to have been triggered by a sudden impulse rather than a preconceived plan. Consequently, the crime committed is homicide, not murder. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The appellant was ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as actual damages.