G.R. No. L-20860. November 28, 1964.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLICERIO NAVARRO alias NONONG, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In the evening of August 4, 1952, in Marbel, Koronadal, Cotabato, appellants Jaime Navarro and his brother Glicerio, along with a group that included Ricardo Arroyo and others, engaged in a drinking session at the public market. During this gathering, loose talk emerged about a plan to kill someone, allegedly prompted by their uncle Eleuterio Navarro, who had insinuated that a certain Yee Bon Kong would pay to have Alfredo Debil liquidated. After drinking, the group proceeded to the entrance of the Grand Theatre and loitered there until after the movie screening ended. When Alfredo Debil passed by, Jaime and Glicerio Navarro, accompanied by an unidentified relative, followed him. As Debil paused to urinate by the roadside, with his back turned, Jaime struck him on the head with a piece of wood. Glicerio and the relative then joined in, with Glicerio using the same piece of wood and the relative hitting Debil with an empty Coca-Cola bottle. Debil died instantly from the injuries, which included a severe depressed skull fracture. The medical examination confirmed he was attacked while urinating.
At trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness Ricardo Arroyo, who positively identified the Navarro brothers as the assailants. The defense consisted of denial and alibi. Jaime Navarro attempted to pin the blame on Ricardo Arroyo, claiming Arroyo had threatened him. Glicerio Navarro claimed he was bedridden with malaria at his aunt’s house during the incident, a testimony corroborated by his aunt. The trial court convicted both appellants of murder, qualified by evident premeditation, and sentenced them to reclusion temporal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but recommended the penalty be increased to reclusion perpetua, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the crime committed is murder or homicide, and what is the proper penalty to be imposed on the appellants.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the classification of the offense from murder to homicide. The penalty imposed by the trial court (reclusion temporal) was upheld.
The Court meticulously examined the qualifying circumstances. It found that evident premeditation was not sufficiently established. The prosecution failed to prove a clear, deliberate plan to kill Debil. The decision to attack appeared to have been formed only during the very short interval from when Debil passed by the appellants until he stopped to urinate, lacking the requisite cool reflection and deliberate preparation. Moreover, the Court emphasized a critical procedural rule: a qualifying circumstance not alleged in the information cannot be used to qualify the offense, even if proven during trial. The information only alleged “deliberate intent,” which is distinct from and not equivalent to the specific legal circumstance of “evident premeditation.”
The Court, however, found that treachery (alevosia) was present in the execution of the crime. The attack was sudden, from behind, while the victim was in a defenseless position (urinating), ensuring the execution without risk to the assailants. Nevertheless, treachery could not elevate the crime to murder because it was not alleged in the information as a qualifying circumstance. Consequently, the crime could only be classified as Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, aggravated by the circumstance of treachery (which could only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance) and nocturnity. With no mitigating circumstances to offset these, the proper penalty was reclusion temporal in its maximum period. The trial court’s imposition of reclusion temporal was within the correct range and was therefore affirmed. The Court of Appeals’ recommendation to increase the penalty to reclusion perpetua was rejected.