G.R. No. 131591 December 29, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERRY SILVA alias “Sitoy” and ALEXANDER GULANE y OLEDAN alias “Alex or Armando”, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Gerry Silva and Alexander Gulane were convicted of murder for the killing of Leo Latoja and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. On December 21, 1995, Leo Latoja was waiting for fare money from his mother, Estelita, when he was attacked. Estelita, having just given him money and turned away, heard a gunshot and saw Silva pointing a gun at Leo, accompanied by two armed men, one later identified as Gulane. Despite Estelita’s pleas and attempt to intervene, the three assailants repeatedly fired at Leo, who fell and later died from multiple gunshot wounds. Estelita positively identified Silva and Gulane as perpetrators.
The defense consisted of denial and alibi. Silva claimed a prior rivalry with the victim and alleged the family bore a grudge. Gulane claimed mistaken identity, asserting he was in Samar at the time and was confused with his cousin, Armando Gulane. The trial court rejected these defenses, crediting Estelita’s clear and positive identification. It found the killing attended by treachery, qualifying it as murder, as the attack was sudden and rendered the victim unprepared for defense.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellants of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court regarding the positive identification of the appellants by eyewitness Estelita Latoja, which prevailed over their defenses of denial and alibi. However, the Court disagreed with the legal conclusion that treachery was present. The essence of treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The prosecution evidence failed to establish how the attack commenced. The fact that the victim was shot suddenly does not, by itself, prove that the assailants consciously adopted a particular method to ensure the killing without any defense. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, the killing was aggravated by abuse of superiority, as three armed men collectively attacked a single, unarmed victim. Consequently, the crime is homicide, aggravated by abuse of superiority. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was imposed within the range of prision mayor, as the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal for homicide. The Court sustained the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages. The decision was modified accordingly.