G.R. No. 133886; September 5, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OSCAR PARBA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 11, 1996, around 3:45 a.m., a group of barangay tanods, including victim Teodoro Coronado, were on roving patrol in Labangon, Cebu City. Coronado went ahead to check a building he was guarding. Shortly after, the patrol heard gunshots. Running toward the sound, witness Efren Belcher and others saw accused-appellant Oscar Parba standing over the fallen Coronado with a gun. They witnessed Parba shoot the victim a third time. When Parba noticed the approaching tanods, he fired twice at them before fleeing. The tanods brought Coronado to the hospital, where he died the next day from gunshot wounds to the abdomen.
The accused-appellant denied involvement, presenting an alibi. He claimed he was at home with his wife, feeling unwell, and only heard gunshots that morning. He asserted the prosecution evidence was merely circumstantial, arguing that the lone eyewitness, Belcher, could not have positively identified him due to darkness and distance, and did not see who actually fired the initial shots or where the victim was hit.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were duly established.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime to Homicide. The Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient for conviction. The testimony of eyewitness Efren Belcher was credible and consistent. He positively identified Parba as the shooter from a distance of about six meters under sufficient illumination from a nearby streetlight and a store’s fluorescent lamp. His account was corroborated by the immediate discovery of the wounded victim at the scene. The alibi of the accused-appellant, uncorroborated by any other witness and not physically impossible, was rightly rejected.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstances were not proven. Treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The prosecution failed to establish how the attack commenced, as the initial shots were not witnessed. Without proof of the manner of the initial assault, treachery cannot be presumed. Evident premeditation was also not established, as there was no evidence of planning or preparation prior to the incident. Consequently, the crime is Homicide, not Murder. The penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor as a minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as a maximum. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 was affirmed.