G.R. No. 88414 , August 21, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMON REBULLAR y PASCUAL and CARLOS BALDOMERO alias “ALOT”, defendants. RAMON REBULLAR y PASCUAL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ramon Rebullar and his co-accused Carlos Baldomero were charged with the murder of Dennis Herrera. The prosecution evidence, primarily from the victim’s wife Roselyn, established that around midnight of September 7, 1985, the two accused arrived by tricycle at the Herrera residence in Cavite City. They called for Dennis, entered the yard, and insisted on speaking to him personally. When Roselyn awakened her husband and he emerged, Rebullar immediately shot him point-blank. Roselyn witnessed Rebullar continuing to shoot her husband as he lay on the floor, while Baldomero moved to shoot her, prompting her to lock herself in a bedroom. The shooting lasted approximately fifteen minutes, resulting in Herrera’s death. Rebullar was later positively identified by Roselyn from police photographs and a line-up. Only Rebullar was apprehended and tried, as Baldomero remained at large. The Regional Trial Court convicted Rebullar of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder instead of homicide, specifically regarding the presence of qualifying circumstances like treachery and evident premeditation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder, holding that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were sufficiently established. The Court explained that treachery (alevosia) was present because the attack was sudden and deliberate, employing means that ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants arising from any defense the victim might make. The victim was shot immediately upon appearing, with no opportunity to defend himself, and the attack continued as he lay helpless. This factual scenario distinguished the case from the precedents cited by the appellant, where witnesses did not see the actual killing or where the victim was facing the assailant. Evident premeditation was also proven by the appellant’s deliberate actions: going to the victim’s house late at night, insisting on seeing him personally, and then executing the planned attack. The Court, however, agreed with the appellant that the use of a motor vehicle and nighttime were not properly aggravating, as the tricycle was merely transport and nocturnity was not deliberately sought. Nonetheless, the presence of treachery and evident premeditation qualified the killing as murder. The Court also rejected the defense arguments based on the appellant’s voluntary surrender and negative paraffin test, noting that positive identification prevailed and that a negative paraffin result, especially for a .45 caliber pistol, does not prove one did not fire a gun. Thus, the trial court’s decision was affirmed in toto.