G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIARANGAN DANSAL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information charged Diarangan Dansal (appellant) with Murder, alleging that on March 2, 1990, in Matungao, Lanao del Norte, he conspired with four others in shooting and killing Abubacar Pagalamatan with treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Panda Antalo and Timal Mosa, who testified that at around 3:00 p.m., while on their way to see Mayor Asis, they saw the victim conversing with appellant and four others. They heard gunshots, turned, and saw smoke coming from appellant’s Garand rifle and empty shells falling from it as he fired at the already fallen victim. They heard seven shots. Appellant and his companions then fled. The defense consisted solely of appellant’s testimony. He claimed that on March 1, 1990, he was seized by Mimbalawang Dorado and his sons in Tagolo-an. The next day, they forced him to go to Matungao, gave him a non-serviceable rifle, and made him accompany them to the victim’s house. The Dorados then shot the victim to avenge a prior killing. Appellant claimed he wanted to shoot the Dorados but his rifle did not work, so he fled with them. He invoked the exempting circumstance of compulsion under an irresistible force. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Murder, sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the victim’s heirs. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not finding that accused-appellant acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
2. Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with modification as to the civil indemnity.
1. On the claim of irresistible force: The Court ruled that appellant failed to prove this exempting circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. His testimony was uncorroborated and self-serving. The claim that he was forced to accompany the armed group and was given a non-working rifle was deemed implausible. The Court found no evidence of imminent danger to his life at the precise moment of the shooting that would constitute irresistible force. His failure to report the alleged compulsion to authorities immediately after the incident further weakened his claim.
2. On the qualifying circumstances: The Court found that treachery (alevosia) was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The eyewitnesses saw the victim conversing with the group one moment, and then being shot by appellant the next. The victim was unarmed and not in a position to retaliate. The means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the killing without risk to the assailants. However, the Court held that abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery. Evident premeditation was not proven, as the prosecution failed to establish the time when the appellant determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution.
The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution eyewitnesses, finding no ill motive for them to falsely testify. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua was affirmed. The civil indemnity was increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in line with prevailing jurisprudence.