G.R. No. 217889. March 14, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RITZ BARING MORENO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ritz Baring Moreno was charged with Murder for the shooting death of Kyle Kales Capsa. The prosecution established that on the night of October 3, 2005, Kyle and his brother Reanne were discussing a prior fistfight involving their cousin when accused-appellant arrived at their compound. Without any prior altercation or warning, accused-appellant, positioned five meters away, fired a .38 caliber revolver twice, with the second shot hitting Kyle in the chest, causing his death. Reanne positively identified accused-appellant as the shooter. Accused-appellant later surrendered and executed an extrajudicial confession with the assistance of counsel, Atty. Rene Bautista, who attested to the voluntariness of the statement.
The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the awarded damages. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that his extrajudicial confession was inadmissible.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Murder, qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime to Homicide. The Court held that treachery was not sufficiently established. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the safety of the offender from any defense the victim might make, and that such means were employed without giving the victim any opportunity to defend himself. Here, the prosecution evidence merely showed that accused-appellant suddenly shot the victim. It failed to establish how the attack was commenced, which is crucial to determine if the victim was utterly deprived of a chance to retaliate or escape. The suddenness of an attack alone does not automatically constitute treachery.
However, accused-appellant’s criminal liability remains. His guilt for the killing was proven beyond reasonable doubt through the positive identification by eyewitness Reanne Capsa, whose testimony was found credible and consistent. The Court also upheld the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession, as it was executed with the assistance of independent counsel who ensured it was given voluntarily, without coercion. Since the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven, the crime is properly Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was duly proven, the penalty was imposed in its minimum period. Accused-appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs, with interest.