G.R. No. L-31960 August 15, 1974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO ZAPATERO and JOSE ZAPATERO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The defendants-appellants, brothers Alfredo and Jose Zapatero, were convicted of murder for the killing of Demetrio Botanes. On March 17, 1968, the victim and his family were at a roadside near a resort in Peñarrubia, Abra, after a picnic. While Demetrio was playing with his infant child, a single gunshot fired from behind struck him in the nape, causing his instantaneous death. His wife, Salvacion Botanes, witnessed the shooting and positively identified Jose Zapatero as the gun wielder and Alfredo Zapatero standing beside him at a distance of about seven to eight meters before they fled. The autopsy confirmed the fatal gunshot wound was inflicted from behind at a lower elevation.
The prosecution established a motive of revenge. The appellants’ father, Felix Zapatero, had been killed earlier on January 8, 1968. A sworn statement by the deceased victim, Demetrio Botanes, revealed he had been involved in the planning of Felix Zapatero’s liquidation and had himself survived a prior shooting attempt allegedly by the appellants on December 25, 1967. The appellants interposed an alibi, claiming they were in Cagayan province during the period from February to May 1968.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder, qualified by treachery, and whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was properly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but disallowed the finding of evident premeditation. The positive identification by eyewitness Salvacion Botanes, who had no ill motive to testify falsely and knew the appellants as former neighbors, prevailed over the weak alibi of the appellants. For an alibi to succeed, it must be shown that the accused was so far away that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the crime scene. Their claimed presence in Cagayan did not negate the possibility of their being in Abra on the specific date of the crime, March 17, 1968.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) was correctly appreciated. The mode of attack—firing a single shot from behind the unsuspecting victim, who was engaged in a familial moment and posed no threat—ensured the execution of the crime without any risk to the assailants from any defense the victim could have made. This manner of attack directly and specifically insured the killing’s success.
However, the Court ruled that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven. While revenge was a clear motive, the law requires proof of overt acts showing the accused’s cool, deliberate, and sustained plan to commit the crime after sufficient reflection. The prior alleged shooting attempt on December 25, 1967, mentioned only in the victim’s sworn statement, was deemed hearsay and uncorroborated by any official complaint. Mere suspicion or inference of premeditation from the motive of revenge is insufficient for judicial appreciation. With no other modifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court modified the civil liability, holding the appellants solidarily liable for the indemnity.