G.R. No. 132632; June 19, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGEL RIOS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On February 7, 1996, in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, an altercation occurred between appellant Angel Rios and Ambrocio Benedicto after the latter confronted Rios about allegedly hurling stones at the Benedicto residence. The dispute was initially pacified by barangay tanods, who escorted both parties to their respective homes. However, Rios returned shortly thereafter. Anacita Benedicto, the victim’s wife, testified that she saw Rios approach her husband on the terrace of their house and suddenly stab him in the stomach. Ambrocio died from the wound. Rios was arrested later that evening. The defense presented only the appellant’s alibi, claiming he was at his brother’s house at the time of the incident.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Rios of Murder, qualified by treachery, and aggravated by dwelling. The court imposed the death penalty and ordered him to pay damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review, with Rios assailing the sufficiency of evidence, the appreciation of treachery and dwelling as circumstances, and the award of actual damages.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling, based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that appellant was the perpetrator, upholding the positive identification by eyewitness Anacita Benedicto, whose testimony was deemed credible and consistent. However, the Court ruled that treachery was not sufficiently established. The attack was not shown to be deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The initial altercation and the prior intervention of tanods indicated that the attack arose from a heated confrontation, not from a methodical execution. Thus, the qualifying circumstance for Murder was absent.
Nevertheless, the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling was correctly appreciated. The fatal stabbing occurred on the terrace of the victim’s house, which is considered an extension of the dwelling. This circumstance justified the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty for Homicide. Regarding damages, the Court reduced the actual damages to only P800.00, as this was the amount substantiated by an original receipt, disallowing unsubstantiated claims. Appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prision mayor maximum to twenty years of reclusion temporal maximum and ordered to pay indemnity, exemplary damages, and the proven actual damages.