G.R. No. 89213 September 8, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REDENTOR ESQUILONA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the night of January 21, 1985, Honorato Laurio, Sr. was shot in his kitchen in Sitio Malbug, Baleno, Masbate. His wife, Lourdes Rapsing, rushed to the scene upon hearing the gunfire and found her husband bloodied. As she cradled him, the victim stated that Redentor Esquilona had shot him. Their nine-year-old son, Honorato Laurio, Jr., rushing downstairs after the shot, came face-to-face with Esquilona holding a homemade gun or “lantaka” before the accused fled. The victim died from his wounds later that same evening. The prosecution presented the wife’s testimony on the dying declaration and the son’s eyewitness account.
The accused, Redentor Esquilona, pleaded not guilty and interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed he was drinking at the house of Dominador Montilla, approximately 400 meters from the crime scene, when the gunfire was heard. The trial court convicted him of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly established.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime to Homicide. The prosecution evidence sufficiently established the accused’s guilt. The victim’s ante mortem statement identifying Esquilona as the assailant, made under a consciousness of impending death, constitutes a credible dying declaration. Even if not strictly admissible as such, it retains high probative value as part of the res gestae, being a spontaneous statement related to a startling occurrence. This was corroborated by the positive identification of the accused by the victim’s son, who saw him at close range in a sufficiently lit area and knew him well as a long-time neighbor. The defense of alibi must fail, as it was not physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene given the proximity of the locations.
However, the Court found that treachery was not proven. Treachery cannot be presumed and must be established as clearly as the crime itself. The records lack conclusive evidence showing that the accused employed means, methods, or forms specifically intended to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. Absent this qualifying circumstance, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. Civil indemnity is increased to P50,000.00.