GR 134607; (December, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134607; December 12, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CELSO REYNES alias “Boy Baga”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that at past midnight on June 20, 1997, in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, accused-appellant Celso Reynes shot and killed Claro Bernardino. The victim’s common-law wife, Norma Padilla, testified that after she and the victim returned home, the victim stepped outside to urinate. Appellant suddenly emerged from the side of their house, approached the unsuspecting victim from behind, and shot him three times at close range. The attack was swift and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The post-mortem examination revealed the victim sustained eight gunshot wounds. The defense relied on alibi, claiming appellant was drinking at a compadre’s house in a different barangay at the time of the incident.
ISSUE
The core issue for automatic review is whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of murder qualified by treachery and properly imposed the death penalty, considering the legal principle that a circumstance used to qualify a crime cannot be counted again as a generic aggravating circumstance.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding of treachery (alevosia). The manner of attack—sudden, from behind, at close range, against an unarmed and unsuspecting victim who was urinating—satisfactorily proved that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the killing without risk to the assailant. This qualified the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Court applied the settled doctrine that treachery, when alleged in the information and appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, cannot be used a second time as a generic aggravating circumstance to justify the imposition of the death penalty. Since no other aggravating circumstance was proven, the proper penalty under the law is reclusion perpetua. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially in light of the positive and credible identification by the eyewitness.