G.R. No. 133004 ; May 20, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. GENEROSO MAGBANUA y AHIT, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Generoso Magbanua was convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court for the killing of Remegio Diaz on June 12, 1992. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Narciso Balucos and Narciso Rellin, who testified that while they were gathering copra on a bridge, appellant approached, engaged in a hostile conversation with the victim, and then shot him twice in the face at close range. They claimed the shooting was sudden and face-to-face. The victim’s mother, Salustiana Diaz, also testified and presented a photograph showing a forehead wound on the victim.
The defense presented a different version. Appellant claimed the eyewitnesses were biased, alleging Balucos held a grudge due to political rivalry. Crucially, the defense presented the testimony of medico-legal officer Dr. Napoleon dela Peña, who conducted the autopsy. Dr. dela Peña’s Necropsy Report and testimony indicated the victim was shot from behind, with entry wounds at the back of the head (occiput) and exit wounds on the face, contradicting the eyewitness account of a frontal assault.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the qualifying circumstance of treachery to sustain a conviction for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery with the requisite moral certainty. The existence of treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. Here, the physical evidence, specifically the medico-legal findings of Dr. dela Peña, created reasonable doubt regarding the manner of attack as described by the eyewitnesses. The autopsy report showing the victim was shot from behind directly contradicted the claim of a sudden, face-to-face shooting, which is essential for treachery. While the eyewitness testimonies were not entirely discarded, the inconsistency with the physical evidence precluded a conclusive finding that the attack was executed in a treacherous manner. The killing was thus established as homicide, not murder. Appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months and one day of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the victim’s heirs.