G.R. No. 131813; September 29, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO ABENDAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of November 3, 1994, in Talisay, Cebu, accused Mario Abendan barged into the house of Estefa Obsiquias. He was armed and looking for Alberto Gabato, whom he intended to kill. Upon entering, he initially pointed his firearm at Estefa in the kitchen before proceeding upstairs to search for Gabato. Failing to find his target, Abendan went back down and confronted the victim, Rizalde Obsiquias, who was sitting on a sofa. Rizalde pleaded that he and the others present were not involved and that Gabato was not there. Abendan, noting Rizalde was Gabato’s cousin, then shot him three times at close range, causing instantaneous death. The prosecution’s case, built on the eyewitness accounts of Estefa and her daughter Lourdes Labajo, established that the attack was sudden and that the unarmed victim offered no provocation or means of defense.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Abendan was in a different municipality watching betamax tapes at the time of the shooting. He asserted he did not surrender immediately due to fear of vigilante groups. The Regional Trial Court convicted Abendan of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and correctly established the qualifying circumstance of treachery to convict him of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the prosecution evidence conclusive. The positive identification by two eyewitnesses, who were familiar with Abendan as a neighbor, was deemed credible and sufficient to establish his presence and criminal act. Their testimonies were consistent and detailed, outweighing the weak alibi presented by the defense, which was not corroborated by clear and convincing evidence of the physical impossibility of his being at the crime scene.
On the qualifying circumstance, the Court upheld the presence of treachery (alevosia). The legal logic is that treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from any defense the victim might make. Here, the attack was sudden and deliberate. The victim was unarmed, seated, and in no position to defend himself or retaliate when Abendan, after a brief confrontation, shot him multiple times at close range. This manner of execution deliberately and consciously adopted by Abendan ensured the killing without any risk to himself from the victim, thereby qualifying the homicide as Murder. The Court, however, reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua in line with prevailing jurisprudence, as no other aggravating circumstances were sufficiently proven. The accused was also ordered to pay civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim’s heirs.