G.R. No. 110564 January 28, 1997
People of the Philippines vs. Ramy Valles

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ramy Valles, a security guard, was charged with murder for shooting Elmer Porcullo. The prosecution evidence established that on October 20, 1990, at the gate of Sta. Monica Canning Corporation, Valles prevented Porcullo from entering the premises for not wearing the proper uniform. After a brief conversation, as Porcullo turned and walked away, Valles, without warning, shot him twice with an armalite rifle, causing fatal wounds. Eyewitness Paulita Palencia testified that the shooting was sudden and unprovoked.
The defense presented a contrary version, claiming Porcullo became angry, uttered unsavory remarks, and then attempted to grab Valles’s service rifle. A struggle ensued, during which the gun accidentally fired. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the testimonies of the defense witnesses inconsistent and physically implausible regarding how Porcullo allegedly grabbed the weapon. The court convicted Valles of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of murder and in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion or obfuscation.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It affirmed the finding of guilt but held that the crime committed was homicide, not murder. The Court ruled that treachery (alevosia) was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted by the offender to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself. The prosecution evidence merely showed a sudden attack following a heated argument. Suddenness alone does not constitute treachery absent proof that the accused deliberately employed a method to render the victim defenseless.
However, the Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation. The evidence showed that the shooting immediately followed a lawful act (the denial of entry for a dress code violation) which produced an unjust or improper offensive act in the accused—the victim’s berating and challenging him to a fight. This sufficient provocation immediately preceded the act, obscuring the accused’s reason. The Court did not appreciate voluntary surrender, as the accused’s act of remaining at the scene was not shown to be for the purpose of surrendering to authorities. Consequently, the penalty was reduced. Accused-appellant was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as maximum.