G.R. No. 137036; March 14, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERNANDO DE MESA and TWO (2) JOHN DOES, accused. HERNANDO DE MESA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On October 15, 1996, Barangay Chairman Patricio Motas was shot dead while playing cards at a neighborhood store in San Pablo City. The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses. Jose Umali testified that after hearing gunfire, he saw accused-appellant Hernando de Mesa and two companions walking away. He recognized de Mesa, heard him state that the victim was surely dead, and saw him carrying a long firearm. Rommel Maghirang corroborated this, testifying he saw de Mesa carrying a firearm near the crime scene, illuminated by his car’s headlights. The victim’s wife, Edna Motas, testified to prior animosity, stating de Mesa had threatened her husband after a confrontation over stolen fruit and a previous physical altercation.
The defense presented an alibi, with de Mesa claiming he was in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, at the time of the crime. He was arrested there in 1998. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and aggravated by contempt of public authority, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. De Mesa appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the qualifying and aggravating circumstances were not established.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, or a lesser offense, considering the evidence on the qualifying and aggravating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court affirmed the trial court’s assessment of the eyewitness testimonies of Umali and Maghirang as credible and sufficient to establish de Mesa’s identity as one of the assailants, thereby upholding his criminal liability for the killing. However, the Court found that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish how the attack was commenced, which is essential to prove treachery. Likewise, the evidence did not convincingly show the planning and preparation required for evident premeditation. The aggravating circumstance of contempt of public authority was also incorrectly applied, as the victim was not engaged in the discharge of his official duties at the time of the killing but was merely playing a card game. Absent any qualifying circumstance, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced de Mesa to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.