G.R. Nos. L-36405-06 September 2, 1985
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Teodulo Calicdan, Artemio Ortiz and Felipe Peralta alias “Eping”, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In the evening of March 21, 1972, at Barrio Lecsi, Manaoag, Pangasinan, appellant Teodulo Calicdan, accompanied by Felipe Peralta, confronted Jose Sabado at a neighbor’s house, accusing him and his companions of throwing stones at Calicdan’s house. After being denied and ordered to leave, Calicdan later returned with Peralta and Artemio Ortiz, all armed, to a store near the scene. When Jose Sabado approached the store, Calicdan suddenly shot him with a shotgun. Calicdan then turned and fired at Rizalino Caoile; this second blast also hit Cecilia Sabado, who was standing behind Caoile. Jose and Cecilia Sabado died from their wounds, while Rizalino Caoile survived.
Appellant Calicdan, along with Ortiz and Peralta, was charged with murder for Jose’s death and murder with frustrated murder for Cecilia’s death and Caoile’s injuries. Peralta remained at large. The trial court dismissed the case against Ortiz due to insufficient evidence. Calicdan was convicted of both complex crimes, qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, but mitigated by voluntary surrender, and sentenced to two life terms.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide and from murder with frustrated murder to homicide with frustrated homicide. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of treachery. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the assailant must have consciously adopted a method of attack deliberately intended to ensure its execution without any risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make. Here, the sudden shooting of Jose Sabado, while unexpected, did not establish that Calicdan employed a specific means to deliberately eliminate any possibility of defense. Regarding Cecilia Sabado, she was indisputably hit by a stray bullet intended for Caoile, which negates any deliberate manner of attack against her personally.
Similarly, evident premeditation was not established. No evidence was presented showing that Calicdan had previously planned or reflected upon the killings. The altercation earlier in the evening, while indicative of a motive, did not constitute the clear proof of prior planning and persistent determination required by law. The Court, however, affirmed the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Consequently, appreciating voluntary surrender without any aggravating circumstance, the Court imposed reduced indeterminate penalties for the crimes of homicide and homicide with frustrated homicide, and increased the civil indemnities.