G.R. No. 120158 -59 September 15, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eleseo Cheng, Alejandro Malubay, and Salvador Sioco, accused. Eleseo Cheng, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Two Informations for murder were filed against Eleseo Cheng, Alejandro Malubay, and Salvador Sioco for the killings of Esperanza Viterbo and Yehia Aburawash Mohammed on February 21, 1989, in Manila. The accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court convicted Cheng and Sioco of two counts of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, and acquitted Malubay for insufficiency of evidence. Sioco escaped detention. Cheng appealed, raising issues of jurisdiction and sufficiency of evidence. The prosecution’s evidence established that on the morning of February 21, 1989, jail guard Edwin Ramos allowed the Egyptian national Yehia Aburawash and his female companion Esperanza Viterbo to enter the Manila City Jail premises. Later, Cheng, then a jail guard on duty, escorted detainee Alejandro Malubay out without authorization. Witness Emma Ruth Ilocso, at a nearby burger stand, saw Aburawash and Viterbo arguing with Cheng, Sioco, and a third man. She saw Cheng shoot Aburawash, followed by shots from Sioco and another from Cheng. Cheng and Sioco then chased Viterbo, told her they would bring her to a cab, and shot her. The victims died from multiple gunshot wounds. Dr. Maximo Reyes opined at least two firearms were used. Cheng claimed the trial court lacked jurisdiction because, as a member of the Integrated National Police at the time of the crime, he should be tried by court-martial under P.D. No. 1850.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant Eleseo Cheng.
2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength were properly appreciated.

RULING

1. The trial court had jurisdiction. While P.D. No. 1850 generally grants court-martial jurisdiction over uniformed members of the Integrated National Police, an exception exists when the accused has been discharged or dismissed from the service before the criminal proceedings are instituted. The records showed Cheng was dismissed from service effective February 22, 1989, and the Informations were filed on June 6, 1989. His dismissal was final and executory, having been affirmed by the National Police Commission. Thus, jurisdiction properly vested with the civil court.
2. Yes, the prosecution proved Cheng’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by eyewitness Emma Ruth Ilocso, who had no motive to falsely testify, was credible and consistent. Her testimony was corroborated by the physical evidence and the autopsy findings. Cheng’s defense of denial and alibi was weak and uncorroborated.
3. The killings were qualified by treachery. The victims were unarmed and shot suddenly, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailants. However, the trial court erred in appreciating evident premeditation, as no evidence showed a preconceived plan; the decision to shoot may have been made during the argument. The separate appreciation of abuse of superior strength was also erroneous, as it is absorbed in treachery. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death. With no aggravating circumstances, the medium penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. The award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity to the heirs of Esperanza Viterbo was sustained, but the additional P10,000.00 moral damages was deleted for lack of justification. The conviction was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.