GR 125305; (June, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125305 ; June 18, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. BERNABE MONTEMAYOR alias “BABY,” Appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of October 5, 1995, appellant Bernabe Montemayor, a Philippine Army master sergeant, attended a social gathering. An altercation erupted when a videoke machine stopped while he was singing. Enraged, Montemayor shouted invectives, destroyed property, and attacked the victim, Leo Pontawe, with a broken bottle. The two men grappled and were separated by bystanders. As he was led away, Montemayor warned Pontawe, “Wait for me and I will come back.” Approximately thirty to forty minutes later, Montemayor returned armed with a short gun. He positioned himself in a dark area near a perimeter fence, about seven meters from where Pontawe and others were conversing under sufficient lighting. Montemayor fired multiple shots, first hitting a companion, Berlin Bornillo, and then fatally shooting Pontawe in the left temple.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) attended the killing to convict the appellant of Murder, rather than Homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder, qualified by treachery, but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to the absence of any aggravating circumstance. The legal logic centers on the establishment of treachery under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found that the manner of attack deliberately and consciously ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the appellant from any defense the victim might make. The initial heated altercation had ended, and the victim was seated calmly in a lighted area, conversing with companions, completely unaware of the impending attack. The appellant, after leaving and arming himself, returned and positioned himself in a concealed, dark location. From this vantage point, he suddenly and without any provocation fired at the unsuspecting victim. This method of attack, adopted deliberately after a period of reflection following the earlier fracas, afforded the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The essence of treachery—the deliberate adoption of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime to ensure its commission without risk to the aggressor—was therefore present. The Court rejected the defense’s claim of denial and alibi, upholding the positive identification by eyewitnesses, including the victim’s wife, as credible and conclusive.