G.R. No. 92506 -07. April 28, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTELITO ESTRELLA Y COLLARIN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Estelito Estrella was charged with Qualified Theft and Murder. After a joint trial, he was acquitted of Qualified Theft but convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and sentenced to “imprisonment for life,” with indemnity of P30,000.00 to the heirs of the victim. The prosecution evidence established that on September 23, 1985, Pat. Abelardo Tan and Cpl. Teresita De Leon were investigating a pilferage at Avondale Garments, where appellant worked as a security guard. Appellant had previously been investigated and maltreated, including by Pat. Tan, in August 1985 for a similar loss. While Pat. Tan was waiting on the second floor, appellant approached from behind and shot him once in the back with a 12-gauge shotgun. Appellant fled the scene and evaded capture until his arrest on January 1, 1989. The victim died from the wounds. Prosecution witnesses Ruby Soliven and Rodolfo Tan positively identified appellant as the shooter. Physical evidence, including ballistic and autopsy reports, corroborated the shooting. Appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in Candelaria, Quezon, working as a rice thresher on the date of the incident.

ISSUE

The primary issues resolved by the Supreme Court were: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to convict appellant of Murder, and (2) the correctness of the penalty imposed by the trial court, including the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty and civil liability. The Court held that the positive identification of appellant by prosecution witnesses prevailed over his weak defense of alibi, as the distance between Candelaria, Quezon, and Valenzuela, Metro Manila, was not insurmountable within a day. Appellant’s flight from the crime scene and prolonged hiding were indicative of guilt. The killing was qualified by treachery because the victim was shot from behind without warning. However, the Court found that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven, as there was no evidence showing when appellant planned the killing or that he knew Pat. Tan would be the investigator on that day; the intent likely arose only upon seeing the victim at the factory. The Court corrected the penalty from “imprisonment for life” to “reclusion perpetua,” noting they are not synonymous under the Revised Penal Code. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.