G.R. No. 60945 March 6, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESARIO DEGAMO and CONSTANTE DEGAMO, defendants, CONSTANTE DEGAMO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Cesario Degamo and his brother, Constante Degamo, were charged with Murder for the killing of Tomas Mina on December 19, 1971, in Burgos, Ilocos Sur. The deceased and the appellants’ father were rival candidates for barrio captain. A meeting was scheduled for that evening. The prosecution evidence established that the two accused, armed with guns, lay in wait beside a narrow pathway they knew the victim would use. When Tomas Mina passed within three meters, they opened fire. As the victim fled, they pursued and continued shooting until he fell. The victim, before dying, identified his assailants to his sister as “Cesario and Constante.” An eyewitness, Urbano Dato, hiding nearby, also positively identified the two brothers as the perpetrators. Cesario later pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Constante proceeded to trial.
The trial court initially convicted Constante of Murder but later modified this to Homicide. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found him guilty of Murder and imposed reclusion perpetua. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final review. The defense’s claim that Constante’s cousin was the actual companion was rejected by the lower courts as unworthy of belief, especially in light of the positive identification by multiple witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted appellant Constante Degamo of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery.

RULING

Yes, the conviction for Murder is affirmed. The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the records and concurred with the appellate court’s finding that the killing was attended by treachery (alevosia), qualifying the crime as Murder. The legal logic is clear: treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Here, the appellants’ actions constituted a textbook case. They deliberately armed themselves, chose a concealed position along a secluded pathway the victim was certain to traverse after dark, and initiated a sudden and unexpected attack at close range. The mode of attack—ambushing the unarmed and unsuspecting victim—was consciously adopted to eliminate any possible risk of defense or retaliation. The pursuit and continued firing as the victim fled merely consummated the treacherous design initially set.
The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings and credibility assessments of the lower courts. The positive identification by eyewitness Urbano Dato and the dying declaration of the victim naming Constante were credible and consistent. The defense of denial and alibi could not overcome this evidence. The claim of surrender was also belied by records showing authorities could not initially locate him. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with the modification of increasing the civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.