G.R. No. 141122 ; April 22, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO CALAGO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information dated January 29, 1997, accused Rogelio Calago of stabbing Arnulfo Lonzaga to death with a “plamingko” (sharp bladed weapon) on December 20, 1997, at about 3:30 a.m. in Lamak, Dumanjug, Cebu, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented three witnesses. Eyewitness Sotero Tewan testified he was awakened by a commotion, went to investigate, and from about five arm’s length away, saw appellant holding a knife and the victim crying for help. He saw appellant stab the victim, who then slumped to the ground. Tewan rushed to the victim, who identified appellant as his assailant before dying. This was corroborated by witness Pedro Durango, who also heard the victim identify appellant. Dr. Octavio Ortiz, the Municipal Health Officer, autopsied the victim and found three stab wounds, two of which were fatal. The defense presented an alibi, with appellant claiming he was at home due to a stomach ache, corroborated by his wife and a neighbor. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity. Appellant appealed, contending the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Rogelio Calago guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt, specifically in finding the presence of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the judgment. It found appellant guilty of Homicide, not Murder. The Court affirmed the appellant’s identity as the assailant based on the positive identification by eyewitness Sotero Tewan, who knew appellant well and witnessed the crime under sufficient moonlight, and on the victim’s dying declaration/part of res gestae. However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven. Treachery was not established because the prosecution evidence did not show how the attack commenced; it only showed appellant was already holding the knife when the witness arrived, and the victim was already crying for help, indicating a possible prior altercation. Evident premeditation was not proven as there was no evidence of the time appellant conceived the criminal plan, an overt act indicating clinging to the plan, or a sufficient lapse of time between the plan and execution. In the absence of qualifying circumstances, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant is sentenced 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. The award of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs is affirmed.