G.R. No. 133002; October 19, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM, A.K.A. ANICETO GALLO, ANTONIO PESEDAS, and JOHN DOE, accused. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM, A.K.A. ANICETO GALLO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Intoy Gallo, was charged with murder for the killing of security guard Ronald Quillope on May 28, 1990, in Tacloban City. The Information alleged conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, superior strength, and nighttime. Appellant’s co-accused, Antonio Pesedas, pleaded guilty to homicide and was sentenced. Appellant, after being arrested six years later, pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s primary witness, Benito Tejano, testified that at around 4:00 A.M., he saw appellant and Pesedas, armed with an M16 rifle, approach a parked Toyota vehicle where Quillope was sleeping. Identifying themselves as “PC Soscia,” appellant struck Quillope with the rifle butt, took his service pistol, and forced him onto a waiting motorcycle which sped away. Hours later, Quillope’s body was found. The defense waived the presentation of evidence. The trial court convicted appellant of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Benito Tejano despite alleged inconsistencies, and (2) whether the evidence established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s guilt but modified the conviction from murder to homicide. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Tejano’s credibility. The alleged inconsistencies between his testimony and sworn statement—regarding whether the victim was sleeping or approached the assailants, and who wore a fatigue shirt—were deemed minor details that did not affect the core narrative of appellant’s direct participation in forcibly taking the victim. The trial court’s factual findings are accorded great respect. On the second issue, the Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to prove appellant’s responsibility for the killing beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence—appellant’s presence at the scene, his act of disarming and assaulting the victim, the forcible taking, the subsequent discovery of the victim’s body, and appellant’s flight—formed an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that he was responsible for the death. However, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven with certainty, as the manner of the actual shooting was not established. Thus, the crime is homicide, not murder. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The award of moral damages was deleted for lack of basis, but temperate damages of P24,000 were granted in lieu of unsubstantiated actual damages, alongside the P50,000 death indemnity.