G.R. No. 227863 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRITO ORDONA Y RENDON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Pedrito Ordona was charged with the murder of Ireneo Hubay. The prosecution, through eyewitnesses Samuel and Marissa Cartagenas, established that on January 1, 2005, in Quezon City, Ordona was seen loitering near the victim’s residence. When Hubay emerged, Ordona approached him, called out “Pare,” and suddenly stabbed him in the left shoulder. Hubay fled but was chased, caught, and stabbed again in the torso despite pleas for mercy, leading to his death. The medico-legal report confirmed the fatal nature of the wounds. The defense presented Ordona as its sole witness, who denied the accusation, claiming he was elsewhere attempting to fetch his wife and was prevented by a commotion.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Ordona of murder, qualifying the killing with both treachery and evident premeditation, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto, holding that Ordona’s act of waiting established evident premeditation and that the sudden attack constituted treachery. Ordona appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove these qualifying circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether or not accused-appellant Pedrito Ordona is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, qualified by either treachery or evident premeditation.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ rulings. It affirmed Ordona’s criminal liability for homicide but found him guilty not of murder. The Court acquitted him of murder due to insufficient proof of the qualifying circumstances. For evident premeditation, the prosecution failed to establish the required elements with reasonable certainty. The Court emphasized that evident premeditation demands clear proof of: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating this determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and execution to allow reflection. Mere loitering or waiting, without evidence of when and how the plan was conceived, is insufficient and cannot be based on mere inference.
Regarding treachery, the Court ruled it was not present. The qualifying circumstance of treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed Ordona called Hubay’s attention (“Pare”) before the initial stab. This act afforded the victim forewarning of a possible hostile encounter, however brief, negating the suddenness and unexpectedness required for alevosia. Therefore, the killing was not attended by treachery. Consequently, without any qualifying circumstance, the crime is homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court sentenced Ordona to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as a minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as a maximum, and affirmed the awarded damages with modification, imposing legal interest.