G.R. No. 194605. June 14, 2016.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO OANDASAN, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mariano Oandasan, Jr. was charged with two counts of murder and one count of frustrated homicide for a shooting incident on July 29, 2003, in Gattaran, Cagayan. The prosecution evidence established that Oandasan suddenly appeared from behind a dump truck and fired at a group of men having a drinking session, killing Edgardo Tamanu and Danilo Montegrico and wounding Mario Paleg. Witness Ferdinand Cutaran testified to seeing Oandasan shoot Montegrico, while Prudencio Bueno heard gunshots and saw Oandasan approaching from behind the truck. The defense relied on denial and alibi, claiming Oandasan was working in Cavite at the time, and presented an employment certificate and a time sheet.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Oandasan of murder for Tamanu’s death, finding treachery present as the attack was sudden. However, for the shootings of Montegrico and Paleg, the court convicted him only of homicide and frustrated homicide, respectively, reasoning that treachery was not proven for these victims. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. The prosecution appealed, arguing that treachery attended all three shootings.

ISSUE

Whether the lower courts erred in not appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killings of Danilo Montegrico and the frustrated killing of Mario Paleg, thereby convicting the accused only of homicide and frustrated homicide instead of murder and frustrated murder.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and found treachery attendant in all three attacks. The legal logic is grounded on the doctrine that treachery can be appreciated even if the victims are different, provided the mode of attack employed by the accused consciously and deliberately adopted a method that ensured the execution of the crimes without risk to himself from any defense the victims might make. The Court held that the shooting was a continuous, sudden, and unexpected assault on a group of unsuspecting victims. The fact that the accused emerged from concealment behind a dump truck and immediately opened fire established that the mode of attack was deliberately chosen to facilitate the crimes without any opportunity for the victims to defend themselves or repel the aggression. This singular, treacherous mode of execution applied to all victims shot in rapid succession during the same incident.
Consequently, the Court modified the judgments. Oandasan was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder for the deaths of Edgardo Tamanu and Danilo Montegrico, and one count of frustrated murder for the shooting of Mario Paleg. The Court affirmed the penalties and awarded civil indemnities, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the heirs of the deceased and the surviving victim, with legal interest on all monetary awards. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected by the lower courts for being weak and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the crime scene.