GR 131808; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131808 ; February 6, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO CABILLAN @ “DODONG,” and MELVIN M. GARCIA @ ROMMEL GARCIA @ ROBIN GAMBOA @ “JR.,” accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Roberto Cabillan and Melvin Garcia were farm helpers of Atty. Jose Sarmenta. On August 19, 1996, Atty. Sarmenta berated Cabillan for using his radio without permission, and the victim’s brother, Juvaldo, hit Cabillan. That evening, appellants, while drinking, were overheard by co-helper and state witness Rogelio Felipe plotting to “tie-up somebody” for two million pesos, referring to their employer. The next morning, Cabillan, with Garcia’s help, stole Atty. Sarmenta’s firearm. On August 21, 1996, while the victim was washing his hands outside his room, Cabillan, using the stolen rifle equipped with a telescope, shot him through a screen from a distance of three meters. Garcia then pointed a gun at Felipe to prevent him from intervening. After the killing, appellants robbed the victim and fled with Felipe using the victim’s car, eventually traveling to Cagayan de Oro.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the accused-appellants are guilty of Murder, and if the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties and the crimes. For Roberto Cabillan, the Court found treachery present. The attack was deliberate and sudden, employing a high-powered rifle with a telescope fired through a screen at an unarmed and unsuspecting victim who was washing his hands, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailant. This method directly and specifically insured the killing without any opportunity for defense, qualifying the crime as Murder. However, evident premeditation was not proven, as the planning overheard by Felipe was general (“tie-up somebody”) and the two-day interval was insufficient to prove the cold and calculated persistence required by law.
For Melvin Garcia, the Court found him guilty only of Homicide. While he conspired in the robbery and facilitated the crime by helping steal the gun and restraining Felipe, the prosecution failed to prove he had prior knowledge of the precise manner of the killing—the treacherous attack executed solely by Cabillan. Without proof that Garcia agreed to this particular method, the qualifying circumstance of treachery could not be imputed to him. Thus, his liability is for the lesser crime of Homicide. The death penalty imposed by the trial court was reduced to reclusion perpetua for Cabillan and an indeterminate prison term for Garcia. The awards for damages were also modified accordingly.