G.R. No. 121993 September 12, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NELSON AGUNIAS alias “BROD NEIL” and MANUEL ARANETA alias “WINGWING,” accused, NELSON AGUNIAS alias “BROD NEIL,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nelson Agunias was charged with Murder in an Information dated February 9, 1994, for the killing of Ferdinand Amor on November 23, 1993, in Cebu City. The Information alleged that Agunias, conspiring with Manuel Araneta (at large), armed with a gun, with deliberate intent to kill, attacked, assaulted, and shot Amor, inflicting physical injuries that caused his death. The Information did not allege any qualifying circumstance such as treachery. Agunias pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Aldrin Velayo, Ramil Arnaiz, and Nestor Veloria Jr., who testified that around 11:20 p.m., they were drinking with the victim and others when Agunias passed by. After refusing a drink, a shot rang out. The witnesses saw Agunias shoot Amor from behind at close range, then tuck the gun into his waistline and walk away. The victim, before dying, identified Agunias as his assailant. Dr. Miguel Mancao testified that the gunshot wound, which entered from the back, fractured a rib, penetrated the lung, and lacerated a pulmonary vein, causing Amor’s death. The defense consisted of denial and alibi. Agunias testified he was taking a bath at home when he heard a shot, and later learned about the incident. Brando Ruflo corroborated that Agunias was bathing. The Regional Trial Court convicted Agunias of Murder, appreciating treachery because the victim was shot from behind while drinking and unaware, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Agunias appealed, assailing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the conviction for murder.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the testimony of the accused-appellant.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Nelson Agunias guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The prosecution witnesses were consistent in their positive identification of Agunias as the shooter, and their testimonies were corroborated by the dying declaration of the victim. The defense of denial and alibi was weak and could not prevail over positive identification, especially as Agunias failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
On the second issue, the Court held that while the prosecution proved the killing was attended by treachery—the victim was shot from behind without any opportunity to defend himself—the accused-appellant could not be convicted of Murder because the Information failed to allege treachery as a qualifying circumstance. An accused may only be convicted of the crime charged or one necessarily included therein. Since treachery was not alleged in the Information, it could not qualify the killing to murder. Treachery, although proven, could only be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Consequently, Agunias was guilty only of Homicide, not Murder. The Court reminded prosecutors to use extreme care in drafting informations to include all elements of the crime charged.
The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery, the penalty was imposed in its maximum period. Agunias was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The award of civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.