G.R. No. 80089. April 13, 1989.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SATURNINO REY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Saturnino Rey was convicted of Murder for the fatal shooting of Nicolas Pagayunan. The prosecution established that on the evening of May 28, 1983, the victim and his sister, Babette, went to draw water from a faucet at Rey’s residence. While Nicolas stood by the faucet conversing with Rey’s son, Roban, he was shot twice from the bedroom window of the accused, located approximately four meters away. The shooting was directly witnessed by Babette and Roban. Nicolas died while being transported to a hospital. An empty shell was recovered below Rey’s window, and Roban pointed to that window as the source of the gunfire during the police investigation.
The defense, on appeal, assailed the trial court’s reliance on prosecution witnesses, listing eighteen circumstances allegedly overlooked. These included the improbability of the victims fetching water from Rey’s non-functioning faucet, the distance between houses, obstructed views from the window, the absence of water containers at the scene, and the claim that the deceased was found inside Rey’s enclosed garden. The core of the defense narrative was that Rey had fired warning shots into the air to scare away trespassers, not intending to hit anyone.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Saturnino Rey of Murder, qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appeal was without merit. The enumerated circumstances were deemed inconsequential in light of Rey’s own judicial admission that he fired the shots that caused the death. The critical inquiry was the nature of the attack. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed without any warning or provocation from the victim, who was merely waiting for water and engaged in a friendly conversation. This manner of attack ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant from any defense the victim might make.
The defense theory of a warning shot was rejected as an afterthought. Testimony revealed the two shots were fired in rapid succession—within seconds of each other—with the first shot immediately hitting the victim. This sequence negated any intent for the first shot to serve as a warning. Furthermore, the location of the empty shell outside the house contradicted the claim of a shot fired upward inside the room. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was thus properly appreciated, converting the homicide into Murder. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards for indemnity and damages were sustained.