G.R. No. 95125 . May 12, 1993.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO PAGSANJAN alias WILLY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Wilfredo Pagsanjan, a former member of the Valenzuela police force, was charged with murder for the killing of Marcelo M. de Leon on January 13, 1987. The information alleged abuse of superior strength, treachery, and evident premeditation. He pleaded not guilty, was tried, and was convicted by the trial court, which sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay various damages to the victim’s heirs. His counsel moved for reconsideration, claiming denial of due process due to the court’s refusal to grant an extension to prepare a memorandum with the transcript of stenographic notes, and also moved for the judge’s inhibition. Both motions were denied. The accused did not file a notice of appeal. Nevertheless, the trial court transmitted the records to the Supreme Court under the mistaken notion that a sentence of reclusion perpetua entitled the accused to an automatic appeal. The Supreme Court noted that, following the constitutional proscription on the death penalty, automatic review no longer exists, and an appeal must be perfected by filing a notice of appeal. However, considering the trial court’s erroneous statement about an automatic appeal and a handwritten letter from the accused proclaiming his innocence and questioning his defense, the Court decided to review the case in the interest of justice.
The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from the victim’s wife Angelina de Leon, established that the de Leon spouses owned an apartment building undergoing renovation. They had sent vacation notices to tenants, including Carmen Reyes, the live-in partner of the accused, who occupied a unit. On the morning of January 13, 1987, Angelina saw the accused enter the apartment carrying a long object. She later heard gunshots and saw her husband lying on a pushcart with the accused bent over him, pointing a long firearm. She heard no prior altercation. The victim had no weapon. A post-mortem examination confirmed death from multiple gunshot wounds. Empty shells from an M-16 Armalite rifle were recovered. The accused fled and remained at large for over two years before being apprehended. The defense presented a different version, claiming the victim was shot by an unknown assailant during a struggle after the victim had drawn a gun, but the trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged. A subsidiary procedural issue involves the propriety of the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the offense from murder to homicide and adjusted the penalty and indemnity. The Court held that the failure to file a notice of appeal should ordinarily result in the finality of the judgment. However, due to the trial court’s error in stating that the accused was entitled to an automatic appeal, and in the interest of justice considering the accused’s proclamations of innocence, the Court reviewed the case.
On the merits, the Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the eyewitness account of Angelina de Leon, credible and sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shot and killed the victim. However, the qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation were not proven. There was no evidence of the mode of attack deliberately chosen to ensure the victim’s defenselessness, as the shooting appeared to be a sudden attack. Abuse of superior strength was not established as the victim was alone and unarmed. Evident premeditation was not proven by evidence of planning or preparation.
Therefore, the crime committed is homicide, not murder. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Court increased the civil indemnity for death to P50,000.00, while affirming the other damages awarded by the trial court (P48,000 for funeral services, P144,000 for the burial lot, and P10,000 for wake expenses).