GR 119070; (August, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 119070 August 30, 1996
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO ALCARTADO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Carlito Alcartado was convicted of murder for the killing of his live-in partner, Digna Guillermo. The prosecution’s primary witness was Virgilio Alcartado, the appellant’s cousin, who testified that he was awakened by the victim’s cries for help at around 3:00 A.M. on February 16, 1993. Virgilio stated he went to the couple’s room and saw Carlito on top of Digna, repeatedly stabbing her with a bolo. Virgilio eventually wrested the weapon away. The victim sustained multiple fatal stab wounds. The trial court found the killing qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, sentencing Carlito to reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, Carlito assailed Virgilio’s credibility, alleging ill motive due to a dispute over a GSIS pension and pointing to Virgilio’s nervous demeanor after the incident. He also argued the prosecution’s failure to present his children, who were also eyewitnesses, constituted suppression of evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of murder or a lesser offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court upheld the credibility of eyewitness Virgilio Alcartado, finding no ill motive strong enough to fabricate a charge of murder. His nervousness was deemed a natural reaction. The non-presentation of the children did not signify suppression of evidence, as the prosecution has discretion in choosing its witnesses.
However, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. The attack occurred inside a room where the victim was presumably awake, and the manner of assault was not shown to have been consciously adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailant. Evident premeditation was also not established beyond reasonable doubt, as the alleged motive—the victim’s mother’s refusal to sell property—was insufficient to prove deliberate planning.
The Court found the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present, as the attack by a man armed with a bolo upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constituted abuse of that superiority. Since this was not alleged in the Information, it could not qualify the killing to murder but could be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance for homicide. Consequently, the Court modified the penalty. Accused-appellant was found guilty of homicide, aggravated by abuse of superior strength, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.