GR L 28673; (October, 1984) (Digest)
March 16, 2026GR 176842; (February, 2008) (Digest)
March 16, 2026G.R. No. 116232 September 26, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO G. DE LEON @ ERNING DEMONYO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Ernesto de Leon was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court for the killing of Alberto Capistrano and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution evidence, primarily from the victim’s 14-year-old son Alvin, established that on March 1, 1992, de Leon arrived at the Capistrano home armed, shouting for his wife, and causing a disturbance. Alvin fetched his father, who was at a nearby baptismal party, to pacify the accused. While returning, they encountered de Leon, who poked a gun at Alvin’s head and then shot Alberto twice. Alvin fled to seek help, hearing more shots. The accused fled after the incident.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the testimony of the victim’s son, and (2) whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently proven to elevate the killing to murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. It held that Alvin’s actions—fetching his father when faced with danger and running for help instead of confronting an armed man—were natural and reasonable for a 14-year-old. His relationship to the victim does not automatically impair his credibility absent proof of improper motive. The poking of the gun at Alvin, even if it caused no injury, was irrelevant to the charge against Alberto.
However, the Court ruled that treachery (alevosia) was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. For treachery to qualify a killing as murder, the means of execution must be deliberately adopted to ensure the offender’s safety from any defense by the victim. Here, the victim was summoned precisely because the accused was already armed and causing trouble; thus, the victim was not completely unaware of the danger. The suddenness of the shooting alone does not constitute treachery without proof that the method was consciously chosen to eliminate risk. Consequently, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed a penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, while affirming the civil indemnity.