G.R. No. 136173 ; March 7, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO ICALLA Y INES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Ernesto Icalla, was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to death. The prosecution established that Icalla was married to Adelina but cohabited with Belen Dawal in Pasay City. After their separation, Belen began a romantic relationship with the victim, Jessie Dalupo, a construction worker, which incited Icalla’s jealousy. On the evening of May 19, 1997, Icalla confronted Dalupo at a construction site, brandished a balisong, and was later pacified by his wife. He returned later, drank with co-workers Arcadio Fermin and Wilson Mesiano, and expressed his intent to confront Dalupo to vindicate his honor. In the early morning of May 20, witnesses Fermin, Mesiano, and Jeramil Eala were awakened by shouts, saw Icalla fleeing the victim’s room with a knife, and found Dalupo fatally stabbed. Icalla was apprehended later that morning, and the blood-stained clothes recovered from his wife matched the victim’s blood type.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Icalla was at home with his wife from 9:00 PM on May 19 until his arrest. He denied the killing and suggested the witnesses framed him due to a prior dispute. The trial court rejected the alibi, giving credence to the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, and found the crime attended by treachery and evident premeditation, qualifying it as Murder.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of Murder, or a lesser offense, based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting no ill motive for the witnesses to falsely testify. The positive identification of Icalla at the crime scene, corroborated by the physical evidence of his blood-stained clothing, sufficiently established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering his alibi weak and unavailing.
However, the Court found that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven. For treachery to exist, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed the attack occurred inside a room where the victim was sleeping, but the prosecution failed to establish how the assault was commenced, leaving doubt as to whether the victim was completely defenseless from the inception. For evident premeditation, the prosecution must show the time the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifesting this determination, and a sufficient lapse of time for reflection. While Icalla expressed anger earlier, this did not conclusively prove a deliberate and persistent plan to kill. Consequently, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, with civil indemnity awarded to the victim’s heirs.