G.R. No. 85246 August 30, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE MALOLOY-ON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Spouses Gerardo and Biotesma Tambago visited their coconut plantation on July 1, 1985, in Palanas, Masbate. There, they saw the children of appellant Felipe Maloloy-on gathering firewood. The children fled. Later that afternoon, Gerardo left his wife at their hut to retrieve their carabao. Upon his return, he saw appellant and his son, Titing, dragging Biotesma’s lifeless body toward a creek. When Gerardo shouted, they threw the body into the creek and fled. The victim had sustained fatal hacking wounds. Gerardo reported the incident to the police. Appellant, pleading not guilty, interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was weeding at his farm with his family at the time of the crime. The trial court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of murder, and if not, what is the proper crime and penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The legal logic is that while the killing was proven beyond reasonable doubt through the credible and positive testimony of eyewitness Gerardo Tambago, which prevailed over the weak defense of alibi, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the offender employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make. The evidence merely showed that the victim was hacked to death but did not reveal the manner of attack or how the commencement of the assault was executed. There was no showing that the appellant deliberately adopted a particular mode of attack to make it impossible or hard for the victim to defend herself. Absent clear proof of the specific manner of assault, treachery cannot be presumed. Consequently, the crime committed is homicide, not murder, punishable under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The civil indemnity was affirmed.