G.R. No. 28702 , March 12, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIO ABRIL, ET AL., defendants. PEDRO PAMPOLINA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the night of March 14, 1927, in Calauan, Laguna, Hermogenes Punsalan was shot and killed. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Brigido Refran, testified that he was walking home when he met accused Julio Abril and Pedro Pampolina. After inquiring about Punsalan’s whereabouts, the two accused proceeded and later met Punsalan riding a carabao. Abril stated they were looking for him, and Punsalan suggested they return together. Shortly after, Refran heard gunshots, looked back, and saw both Abril and Pampolina firing at Punsalan. He saw them flee, and noticed Pampolina had a revolver in his hip pocket. Punsalan was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds. The autopsy revealed fatal wounds, including one to the head that caused instantaneous death. Ballistic evidence showed that two types of revolvers were used: a .45 caliber double-action revolver (from which bullets were recovered from the body) and a .45 caliber automatic revolver (from which empty shells were found). Only Pampolina appealed his conviction for homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Pedro Pampolina of homicide based on the evidence presented.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Brigido Refran credible despite minor inconsistencies with his prior affidavit, which he explained were due to fear of the accused before their arrest. His detailed trial testimony established that both Abril and Pampolina fired shots at the victim. The ballistic evidence corroborated Refran’s account, proving that two different firearms were used, which contradicted the defense’s claim that only Abril was responsible. Pampolina’s flight and failure to report the crime for five days were also considered indicative of guilt.

The crime was properly classified as homicide, not murder. While the information alleged treachery, the prosecution failed to prove conclusively that the assailants employed means to ensure the execution without risk to themselves. The eyewitness did not see the commencement of the attack, and the direction of some wounds alone was insufficient to establish treachery. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present, as two armed men attacked the victim. However, the lower court correctly offset this with the mitigating circumstance of the defendants’ scant education, imposing the penalty in its medium degree (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of *reclusion temporal*).