G.R. No. 131347 . May 19, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODRIGO MALDO and REYNALDO MALDO, accused; RODRIGO MALDO, appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that on February 20, 1994, in Santa Cruz, Laguna, Michael Bacho was chased by Reynaldo Maldo, who was armed with a handgun, and his father, appellant Rodrigo Maldo, who was carrying a piece of wood. Witnesses Virginia Cordova and Ronnie Toquero testified that they saw the victim cornered in an alley, where Reynaldo shot him twice, first in the chest and then in the head. Cordova also testified that she heard Rodrigo shouting, “Patayin mo, patayin mo,” to his son during the chase. The appellant, Rodrigo Maldo, pleaded not guilty, while his co-accused, Reynaldo, remained at large. The Regional Trial Court convicted Rodrigo Maldo of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were biased and unreliable due to their relationship with the victim’s family. He also contended that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven, as the prosecution failed to detail how the attack commenced. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Rodrigo was elsewhere during the incident.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the victim discredits their testimonies; and (2) whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was proven to elevate the killing to murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Homicide, not Murder, and modified the penalty accordingly. The Court held that the relationship of a witness to the victim, by itself, does not render their testimony inherently biased or unworthy of belief. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded the highest respect, as it had the direct opportunity to observe their demeanor. The testimonies of Cordova and Toquero were consistent on material points and positively identified the appellant’s participation in the chase and his exhortations to kill, establishing conspiracy.
However, the Court ruled that treachery was not proven. For treachery to qualify a killing as murder, the prosecution must establish how the attack began. The evidence only showed the victim being chased and then shot; it did not reveal the manner of the commencement of the aggression, which is essential to prove that the accused employed means that ensured the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. The failure to establish this initial attack meant the killing could only be classified as Homicide. Consequently, the Court found appellant Rodrigo Maldo guilty as a conspirator to Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and imposed an indeterminate penalty. The civil indemnity awarded by the trial court was sustained.