G.R. No. 141800 December 9, 2002
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Eleno Paracale y Pardilla, appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Eleno Paracale, was charged with Murder for the killing of Manolo Pasquin on January 12, 1992, in Pototan, Iloilo. The prosecution’s principal witness, Ninfa Pasquin (the victim’s wife), testified that around 8:00 PM, she saw appellant, a barangay tanod, and three companions armed with firearms outside her fence. Later, around 11:00 PM, she heard explosions, and upon looking with a flashlight, she saw appellant running away with a shotgun and heard him shout to his companions to run fast. She then discovered her husband’s body at their fence entrance with gunshot wounds. A paraffin test on appellant yielded positive for gunpowder nitrates. After learning of the test result, appellant fled and was later arrested. The defense presented alibi, claiming appellant was at home caring for his grandson and was later asked for help to bring the victim to the hospital. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The issues boil down to: (1) the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence, and (2) the presence of treachery to qualify the killing as murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the appeal partly meritorious. It upheld the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide.
On the first issue, the Court ruled that the conviction based on circumstantial evidence was valid. It enumerated eight circumstances proven by the prosecution which, taken together, formed an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator. These included Ninfa’s positive identification of appellant before and after the shooting, his positive paraffin test, his flight after the incident, and prior ill motive between appellant and the victim.
On the second issue, the Court held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish how the attack was commenced. There was no evidence showing that the victim was utterly defenseless or that the mode of attack was consciously adopted by the appellant to ensure the killing without risk to himself. The mere fact that the attack was sudden does not, by itself, constitute treachery. Since treachery was not duly proven, the crime is Homicide, not Murder. The Court affirmed the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 but deleted the award of attorney’s fees for lack of basis. Appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty for Homicide.