G.R. No. L-30314 March 15, 1982
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eduardo Gutierrez alias Eduarding and Bernabe Mislang alias Berning, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of May 2, 1964, Barrio Captain Carlos Cagampan, Rural Policeman Gerardo Estabillo, and two companions were patrolling Barrio Caturay, Bayambang, Pangasinan, due to reports of theft. During their patrol, they encountered two individuals sitting by the roadside. Upon focusing a flashlight on them, Cagampan and companion Domingo Cabaliw recognized the two as appellants Eduardo Gutierrez and Bernabe Mislang, each holding a carbine. Gutierrez shouted a warning to Cabaliw not to approach. Immediately after Cabaliw responded, identifying themselves as patrollers, Mislang suddenly fired his carbine at the group, followed by Gutierrez. The patrol members ran for cover, but Estabillo was hit and died instantly. The appellants then fled.
The defense interposed was alibi. Appellants claimed they were in San Mateo, Rizal, over 300 kilometers away, working as truck helpers on the date of the incident. They asserted they had no reason to kill the victim and presented their employer to corroborate their presence in Rizal. The trial court convicted them of Murder, sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of Estabillo.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of the crime of Murder.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to the complex crime of Homicide with Direct Assault. The Court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the defense of alibi, upholding the positive identification of the appellants by eyewitnesses Cagampan and Cabaliw. The Court found minor discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimonies to be natural and indicative of credibility rather than fabrication. However, the Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding of treachery (alevosia), a qualifying circumstance for Murder. The evidence showed Gutierrez shouted a warning before the shooting, which negated the sudden and unexpected attack required for treachery. The Court also found no evidence of evident premeditation. Since the deceased was a barrio rural policeman, an agent of a person in authority, killed while in the performance of his duty, the killing constituted Direct Assault. The single act of firing resulting in death constituted the complex crime of Homicide with Direct Assault under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the penalty for the more serious offense (Homicide) in its maximum period, the Court sentenced each appellant to an indeterminate penalty of 7 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 6 months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and upheld the joint and several indemnity.