GR 123939; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123939 ; May 28, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DOMINGO VASQUEZ y PACHECO and RAMON VASQUEZ y PACHECO, accused. DOMINGO VASQUEZ y PACHECO, appellant.
FACTS
The case originated from a family altercation on June 18, 1995, in Kalookan City. Luis Luable intervened in a dispute between his neighbor, Pedro Pacheco, and Pedro’s son, Roel. Roel then attacked Luis with a bolo and a stone. Luis fled to the house of his half-brother, Geronimo Espinosa, and later, with Geronimo, went to the police precinct to settle the matter. After leaving the station, Luis and Geronimo were walking with companions when a passenger jeepney driven by appellant Domingo Vasquez (Roel’s uncle) sped towards them. They avoided the vehicle, but Domingo and his brother Ramon, armed with bolos and accompanied by others, alighted and chased them.
Luis and Geronimo fled in different directions. Luis escaped, but Geronimo was caught and killed. The trial court convicted Domingo Vasquez of Murder for Geronimo’s death and Attempted Homicide for the attack on Luis Luable. Domingo appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Domingo Vasquez for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the presence of treachery to qualify the killing as murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It affirmed appellant’s criminal liability but reclassified the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court found that the prosecution successfully established through the credible and consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, particularly Luis Luable and Debbie Dorado, that appellant was among the armed men who chased and killed Geronimo Espinosa. Their positive identification prevailed over the appellant’s denial and alibi.
However, the Court ruled that treachery was not proven. The qualifying circumstance requires that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the killing without risk to the assailant. The prosecution evidence showed the attack began with a chase on a lighted street. The victim had the opportunity to flee and was aware of the impending danger, indicating he was not completely defenseless. Thus, the attack lacked the suddenness and deliberate mode of execution required for treachery. Absent any qualifying circumstance, the killing constituted Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was adjusted accordingly. The Court also modified the awards of damages to conform with prevailing jurisprudence.