FACTS:

Pedro Garcia, a soldier of the Constabulary, was on guard duty as a sentry. When it was time for his relief, the deceased, accompanied by the corporal of the guard, went to Garcia’s post. Garcia was not found at his post and did not respond to the corporal’s repeated calls. As the corporal and the deceased were about to leave, a gunshot was heard, and the deceased was instantly killed by a bullet. The corporal then apprehended Garcia, who was found sitting on a bench approximately 3 brazas (about 5.5 meters) from his post, concealed by the darkness of the night.

Garcia admitted killing the deceased, alleging that he fired because the deceased did not stop or answer his three orders to halt, leading him to believe the deceased was an enemy. However, this claim was contradicted by the corporal and two other witnesses, who testified that the corporal called Garcia several times, but Garcia was not heard giving any halt orders. The witnesses also stated that the deceased was accompanied by the corporal, who carried a torch, disproving Garcia’s assertion that the deceased was alone and without light. The trial court qualified the deed as homicide and found Garcia guilty, imposing a penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, with indemnity and costs.

The Attorney-General appealed, contending that the crime should be qualified as murder due to treachery, as the aggression was sudden and unexpected, committed while Garcia was concealed, thus preventing the victim from defending himself.

ISSUE:

Was the trial court correct in qualifying the crime as homicide, and not murder, considering the allegation of treachery?

RULING:

Yes, the trial court was correct in qualifying the deed as homicide. The Supreme Court found that, considering all the circumstances, Garcia likely fell asleep on the bench. Upon being abruptly awakened by the corporal’s calls and seeing two persons approaching in the dark, Garcia became bewildered and, without time to comprehend the exact situation, fired the fatal shot.

The Court held that under these circumstances, there was no “deliberate intent to act without risk to himself or in perfect safety.” Treachery (alevosía), as defined in the Penal Code, requires that the accused willfully and knowingly avail himself of an advantageous position to ensure the success of the aggression without risk to his person. Garcia’s actions, stemming from bewilderment and a sudden awakening rather than a deliberate choice to use concealment to his advantage, lacked the element of deliberate intent necessary for treachery. Therefore, the trial judge correctly qualified the deed as plain homicide.

The judgment appealed from was affirmed.