G.R. No. L-54335. December 14, 1981.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMMANUEL FELIPE VELASCO, ET AL., accused, EMMANUEL FELIPE VELASCO Y SARNO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Emmanuel Felipe Velasco, was convicted of Murder by the Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu for the killing of taxi driver Ricardo Barbado and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The conviction was primarily based on Velasco’s sworn extrajudicial confession. In that confession, Velasco admitted that on the evening of March 21, 1978, he and three companions, Agustin “Boy” Kho, Ben Verano, and Ben del Rosario, conspired to rob the driver. Velasco narrated that Kho initially pointed a gun at Barbado, after which Velasco took over driving the taxi. While en route, with both Kho and Verano pointing their revolvers at Barbado from the backseat, the victim attempted to escape. This prompted Kho to fire two shots, killing Barbado. Velasco later surrendered to authorities.
At trial, Velasco repudiated his confession, claiming it was coerced. The trial court, however, admitted the statement, finding it was given after he was properly informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. The court concluded the confession was voluntary and sufficient to prove his guilt for Murder, qualified by treachery.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether Velasco’s extrajudicial confession was admissible; and (2) assuming admissibility, whether it was sufficient to sustain a conviction for Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It first held that the extrajudicial confession was admissible. The statement contained a clear preliminary warning informing Velasco of his right to remain silent and to counsel, which he acknowledged. There was no evidence that force or intimidation vitiated his free will in giving the confession; thus, it met the constitutional requirements for admissibility.
However, the Court ruled the confession was insufficient to support a conviction for Murder. A careful examination of the statement revealed the killing was not attended by treachery, which requires a deliberate and sudden attack ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. Here, the intention was robbery. The victim was aware of the threat against him, as two revolvers were pointed at him during the entire ordeal. The shooting was a spontaneous reaction to his attempt to escape, not a preconceived plan to kill. Therefore, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was absent. The crime committed was Homicide, not Murder.
Furthermore, the Court found the evidence did not establish conspiracy to kill. Velasco’s role was limited to driving the vehicle. While he knew his armed companions might harm the driver, his actions did not demonstrate a direct agreement to commit the killing. Consequently, he was liable only as an accomplice to Homicide. Appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superiority and use of a motor vehicle, the Court sentenced Velasco as an accomplice to an indeterminate penalty of six years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eleven years of prision mayor, as maximum, and ordered him to pay indemnity to the victim’s heirs.