G.R. No. 157984 ; July 8, 2004
Moises Simangan, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Moises Simangan and Loreto Bergado were charged with murder for the killing of Ernesto Flores on February 10, 1980. The prosecution established that Simangan, Bergado, and three others, armed and in fatigue uniforms, arrived at the victim’s store. They asked Flores to guide them. Later that night, Flores’s helper returned for supplies but Flores never came back. His body was found the next day, hands tied, with multiple stab wounds. A crucial witness, Fernando Saquing, a cousin of the victim’s wife and Simangan’s classmate, testified that Simangan confessed to him in detail about the stabbing, even stating they tasted the victim’s blood.
The defense consisted of alibi and denial. Simangan claimed he was in his boarding house in Tuguegarao on the night of the crime and that Fernando’s accusation was a surprise. The trial court convicted Simangan of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Simangan elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the conviction of petitioner Moises Simangan for murder is supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of Fernando Saquing credible and sufficient to establish Simangan’s guilt. Fernando’s account of Simangan’s detailed confession, which included facts not publicly known, was deemed a reliable declaration against interest. The Court rejected Simangan’s defense of alibi and denial as weak and unsubstantiated, especially in light of the positive identification and confession.
However, the Court downgraded the crime from murder to homicide. The Information alleged treachery and evident premeditation, but the evidence failed to prove how the attack was commenced. The mere fact that the victim’s hands were tied when found does not, by itself, establish that the assailants employed means to ensure the victim’s defenselessness from the inception of the attack. With treachery not proven, the killing is homicide. The Court also correctly disregarded the alleged aggravating circumstances of cruelty and nighttime, as they were not alleged in the Information as required by the rules. Consequently, the penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to sixteen years of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.