G.R. No. L-30617 August 6, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO CANANOWA, accused.

FACTS

In the evening of December 21, 1968, Emilio Royo was stabbed to death inside a residence in Makati, Rizal, sustaining fifteen wounds. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Rogelio Dineros. Dineros testified that while drinking at his home, he heard Royo shout. Upon climbing a wall to investigate, he saw Royo being held by two persons while the accused, Francisco Cananowa, whom Dineros recognized as a fellow driver, stabbed Royo. The area was illuminated by a nearby electric post. The defense presented an alibi, with Cananowa claiming he was working elsewhere at the time and only learned of the incident later from his wounded nephew, Jesus Cananowa, who alleged he had been stabbed by Royo.
The trial court convicted Francisco Cananowa of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to death. The accused did not appeal, but the case was automatically elevated to the Supreme Court for review of the death penalty. The defense assailed the trial court’s finding that Cananowa had admitted to the stabbing, a point conceded as erroneous by the Solicitor General, and contended that the crime should only be homicide.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted Francisco Cananowa of murder, or if the crime committed was homicide, and whether the aggravating circumstances were properly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime and penalty. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Rogelio Dineros credible and sufficient to establish Cananowa’s participation in the killing. Dineros positively identified Cananowa under adequate lighting, and his testimony was consistent with his prior sworn statement. The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of Cananowa’s alibi, as he was sufficiently identified.
However, the Court ruled that the killing constituted homicide, not murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. The sole eyewitness did not witness the commencement of the assault; therefore, there was no evidence on how the attack began to establish that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the victim’s defenselessness. The fact that one alleged assailant, Jesus Cananowa, was also wounded suggested a possible altercation, negating a conclusive finding of a surprise attack. Abuse of superiority, due to the number of assailants, was present but was not alleged in the information and thus could only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance, not a qualifying one.
Consequently, the Court convicted Cananowa of homicide, aggravated by abuse of superiority with no mitigating circumstances. The death sentence was set aside. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity of twelve thousand pesos was affirmed.