G.R. No. L-18033 July 26, 1966
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. MACARIO CASALME, defendant and appellant.

FACTS

Macario Casalme was convicted of murder for the fatal shooting of Domingo Veras on December 20, 1959. Both were foremen at the Canlubang Sugar Estate. The day before the shooting, on December 19, Veras assaulted Casalme by giving him a fist blow on the cheek after Casalme allegedly called him “sipsip” and spat on his face. Casalme then ran away, shouting “Magbabayad ka rin” to Veras. On the evening of December 20, as Veras was walking home on a barrio road, he encountered Casalme, who had just come out of his sister’s premises. Casalme uttered “Panahon na,” aimed a pistol at Veras, and fired five shots in quick succession. Veras was hit, with a fatal wound on the left side of his head. Two eyewitnesses, Victor Atienza and Elpidio Marasigan, positively identified Casalme as the shooter. Atienza saw Casalme fire the last two shots and recognized his familiar figure, while Marasigan, who was walking a few paces behind Veras, saw the encounter and heard the exchange of words. Casalme raised a defense of alibi, claiming he was in Bataan visiting a sister from December 20 to 23, 1959. The trial court found his alibi weak, noting his suspicious disappearance immediately after the shooting, his failure to claim his Christmas bonus, and his subsequent hiding in Tagaytay City. The court convicted Casalme of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with an indemnity of P6,000. Casalme appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the identity of Macario Casalme as the killer has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the offense committed was murder or simple homicide.

RULING

1. Yes, the identity of Macario Casalme as the killer was established beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by two eyewitnesses, Victor Atienza and Elpidio Marasigan, who knew Casalme well, prevailed over his defense of alibi. The trial court’s observations on Casalme’s suspicious conduct—his immediate flight after the shooting, his unexplained travel to Bataan and Tagaytay City, and his failure to claim his bonus—further supported his guilt and indicated consciousness of guilt.
2. The offense committed was murder, qualified by treachery (alevosia). The court found that treachery was present because Casalme employed means that directly and specially ensured the execution of the offense without risk to himself from any defense Veras might make. Although Veras had been threatened the day before, he had no idea how the threat would be carried out. Casalme accosted him and fired five shots without warning, leaving Veras no opportunity to defend himself. However, the penalty was modified due to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as Casalme surrendered to the Justice of the Peace and later to the Constabulary headquarters. The Supreme Court reduced the penalty to an indeterminate sentence ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, while affirming the civil indemnity of P6,000.