G.R. No. L-24371; April 16, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CONSTANCIO GUEVARRA, ET AL., defendants, CONSTANCIO GUEVARRA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Constancio Guevarra and Felipe Cornelio, policemen of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, were charged with murder for the killing of Agapito Salazar on the night of November 12, 1959. The information alleged they shot Salazar, mistaking him for Andres Papasin, with treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of official position. After trial, the court convicted Guevarra of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, while acquitting Cornelio on reasonable doubt. Guevarra appealed.
The evidence established that on the evening of November 12, 1959, Guevarra and other policemen, resentful over a rumor that Papasin blamed police abuses for Mayor Melgar’s election defeat, confronted Papasin at a store. A heated discussion ensued, during which Estelito Frayre said, “Tirahin na iyan,” prompting Guevarra to pull out his .45 caliber pistol, but he was prevented from shooting by Amado Garing. Papasin later left with his wife. Guevarra then positioned himself under a tamarind tree about 20 meters from Papasin’s house. When Agapito Salazar, Papasin’s cousin, later emerged from the house and walked toward the coconut grove, passing about 15 meters from Guevarra’s position, Guevarra fired at him. After the first shot, Guevarra moved closer and fired two more shots from 6 to 8 meters away, killing Salazar. Guevarra fled, bumping his head against a guyabano tree, and hid in the storeroom of Mayor Melgar’s house, where he was later found. He gave a statement admitting he shot Salazar, mistaking him for Papasin.

ISSUE

The main issues raised on appeal were: (1) the credibility of prosecution witnesses Yolando Sarabia, Gregorio Mercado, and Antonio Valencia; (2) the voluntariness of Guevarra’s extra-judicial confession (Exhibit A); and (3) whether the prosecution proved Guevarra’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that the trial court’s findings on witness credibility were entitled to great weight, as it was in a better position to observe the witnesses’ demeanor. The prosecution witnesses consistently testified that they saw Guevarra fire the shots at the victim. Guevarra’s extra-judicial confession was deemed voluntary, as it was given after proper questioning, reduced to writing, and sworn to before the clerk of court, with no evidence of coercion. The Court found the confession corroborated by other evidence, including the recovery of his gun and the autopsy findings.
The crime was murder qualified by treachery. Guevarra, hidden behind a tree, shot the unarmed and unaware victim, employing means to ensure the crime’s execution without risk to himself. The fact that he mistakenly killed Salazar instead of the intended victim, Papasin, did not mitigate his criminal liability; he was responsible for the consequences of his acts. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated even when the victim was not the intended target, as neither could have defended themselves or been aware of the attack.
The Court did not appreciate the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation (as the deceased was not the intended victim), nighttime (absorbed in treachery), superior strength (only Guevarra was responsible), or abuse of official position (no proof he used his office’s influence to commit the crime). The decision was affirmed in all respects.