G.R. No. 121377 August 15, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSEPH GELERA @ “SAKI” and ROGELIO FERNANDEZ @ “TIMBOY”, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On December 4, 1991, at about 11:00 p.m. in Sitio Malampa, Bayawan, Negros Oriental, accused-appellants Joseph Gelera and Rogelio Fernandez, together with Amid Jamandron and Aron Vergara, accompanied the drunk victim Daniel Udto home from a dance. While walking along a narrow footpath, with the victim between them and their arms over each other’s shoulders, Fernandez punched Udto, causing him to fall. While Udto was on the ground, Gelera struck him five times on the neck with a stone. They then dumped him face down in a knee-deep canal and stepped on his body, resulting in his death from cerebral hemorrhage. Amid Jamandron witnessed the incident. The following day, Gelera and Fernandez asked Amid to stow away with them, but he refused and later reported the crime to his father and the police. Gelera claimed self-defense, testifying that Udto attacked him first along the footpath. Fernandez claimed alibi, testifying he was fishing at sea during the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted both of Murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by superior strength, evident premeditation, and grave abuse of confidence, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. Both appealed, but Fernandez’s appeal was dismissed as he escaped detention.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence, superior strength, and evident premeditation were properly appreciated by the trial court; and (2) Whether accused-appellant Gelera acted in legitimate self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It ruled that treachery was not proven with clear and convincing evidence, as the lone eyewitness’s testimony lacked details showing the attack was sudden and unexpected or that the appellants consciously adopted a particular method of attack to ensure execution without risk. The aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and grave abuse of confidence were also not established, as there was no proof the appellants took advantage of combined strength or that a relationship of immediate and personal confidence facilitated the crime. However, the Court found Gelera guilty of Homicide, rejecting his claim of self-defense for lack of credible evidence of unlawful aggression by the victim, who was notably drunk. The Court set aside the Murder conviction and sentenced Gelera to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and upheld the order to indemnify the heirs of Daniel Udto P50,000.00.