G.R. No. 119464 January 28, 1999
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Virgilio Vermudez y Yasay, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Virgilio Vermudez was charged with Murder for the killing of Aquilino Rosaro. The Amended Information alleged that on May 15, 1985, in Barangay Tartarabang, Pinili, Ilocos Norte, with intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation, appellant shot Aquilino Rosaro twice in the back with a .38 caliber revolver, causing his instantaneous death. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P50,000.00 as indemnity to the victim’s heirs.
The prosecution’s evidence established that at around 4:30 PM on May 15, 1985, during a motocross event, prosecution witnesses Pedro Tira, Elpidio Rosaro, and Imelda Tajon saw appellant draw a gun, approach the victim from behind, and shoot him twice in the back. Police officer Pat. Freddie Pagdilao, who was standing nearby, heard a gunshot, saw appellant with a gun aimed at the falling victim, chased, and apprehended him. The victim died from the gunshot wounds, as confirmed by the post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Franklin Rambayon.
The defense presented a different version. Appellant testified that he approached the victim to confront him about rumors that the victim intended to kill the Vermudez clan. He claimed the victim pulled a gun, they grappled for it, and the gun went off twice while the victim’s arm was twisted towards his own back, causing the fatal wounds. Defense witnesses Leonido Vermudez, Juan Edmalin, and Daniel Manalili corroborated that they saw a struggle and heard gunshots but did not see who fired.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
2. Whether the trial court erred in ordering accused-appellant to pay P50,000.00 as indemnity to the victim’s heirs.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
1. The trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. The prosecution witnesses positively and consistently identified appellant as the one who deliberately shot the unarmed victim from behind. Their testimonies were found credible and were corroborated by the physical evidence (gunshot wounds on the back) and the immediate arrest of appellant. The defense of accidental shooting during a struggle was rejected. The Court found no evidence that the prosecution witnesses had ulterior motives to testify falsely. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself.
2. The trial court did not err in awarding P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The award is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence for death resulting from crime.
Costs against accused-appellant.