G.R. No. 219884 . October 17, 2018
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. MICHAEL A. BELLUDO AND JOHN DOE, ACCUSED. MICHAEL A. BELLUDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Michael A. Belludo was charged with Murder for the shooting death of Francisco “Paco” Ojeda on August 12, 2008, in Naga City. The Amended Information alleged that Belludo, conspiring with a John Doe on a motorcycle, shot the victim with treachery. The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of eyewitness Allan Ladia, who was collecting scraps with his son near the crime scene. Ladia testified that upon hearing a gunshot, he saw a man tuck a gun into his waist and board a waiting motorcycle. As the motorcycle passed by, Ladia’s son identified the man as the shooter. Ladia later identified Belludo as that man in a police line-up and in court. The victim’s common-law wife and police investigators corroborated the incident and the investigation leading to Belludo’s arrest. The defense presented only Belludo, who denied the accusation and claimed he was at his workplace, a billiard hall, at the time of the shooting.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Belludo of Murder, qualifying the crime with treachery and imposing reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Belludo appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of Murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ decisions. It upheld the conviction but reduced the crime from Murder to Homicide, acquitting Belludo of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court found the positive identification by eyewitness Ladia, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, to be credible and sufficient to establish Belludo’s identity as the perpetrator. His testimony was clear, consistent, and remained unshaken on cross-examination. The defense of denial and alibi, uncorroborated and weak against positive identification, was rightly rejected.
However, the Court ruled that treachery was not proven. For treachery to qualify the killing to murder, the prosecution must establish that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The records showed the attack occurred at 3:00 a.m. The lone eyewitness did not see the commencement of the attack, only its aftermath. There was no evidence detailing how the assault began or whether the accused consciously adopted a particular mode of attack to render the victim defenseless. The mere fact that the victim was shot from behind does not, by itself, constitute treachery absent proof of the manner it was executed. Thus, the killing lacked the qualifying circumstance and was properly Homicide.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Belludo to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages were set at P50,000.00 each, with legal interest.