G.R. No. 129732 November 19, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO BASCO y SALAO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of May 3, 1992, a drinking session outside the house of Rolando Buenaventura, Sr. in Tondo, Manila, turned violent. Accused-appellant Mario Basco, who was part of the group, brandished a balisong and threatened a cousin of the deceased, Emy. This led to a commotion where Basco accidentally injured Rolly, the son of Buenaventura. An angry exchange ensued between Basco and Buenaventura. The altercation was temporarily pacified by a neighbor, policeman Jaime Macanas, who fired warning shots. Basco was taken home by his wife.
Later, while Rolando Buenaventura, Sr. was inside his home with his family preparing to eat supper, Basco returned. He stood at the doorstep, cursing and calling for Buenaventura. When Buenaventura stood up, Basco immediately shot him. The accused-appellant fired multiple times, including a final shot at close range to the victim’s chest, killing him instantly. The autopsy confirmed three fatal gunshot wounds.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attended the killing to qualify it as murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder, qualified by treachery, but found no evident premeditation. The legal logic hinges on the established facts demonstrating how the killing was executed. Treachery requires: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of such means. Both elements were present. The attack was sudden. The victim, Rolando Buenaventura, Sr., was unarmed and inside his home, having been called to supper, when Basco appeared at the door and immediately opened fire without any provocation or warning at that moment. The means of attack—a gun fired at an unsuspecting victim in a confined domestic space—was deliberately adopted to ensure the execution without risk to the assailant from any defense the victim might make.
Evident premeditation was not proven. While there was a prior altercation, the prosecution failed to establish the required elements: the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating his clinging to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and execution to reflect on the consequences. The court found the return to the victim’s house could have been impulsive, not the product of cool reflection. The award of damages was modified, deleting the unsubstantiated award for loss of income but upholding civil indemnity ex delicto.