G.R. No. L-55649 December 3, 1985
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. ROLANDO SISCAR y CAPIO, defendant.

FACTS

The appellant, Rolando Siscar, was convicted of murder for the killing of his uncle, Moises Capio, on July 12, 1972, in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The prosecution evidence established that on the morning of the incident, the victim was preparing to attend a court hearing. His wife, Mercedes, saw Siscar nearby carrying a shotgun but thought nothing of it as he often hunted. Shortly after Moises left his house, three gunshots were heard. A neighbor, Juana Caringal, immediately shouted to Mercedes that Siscar had shot Moises. Mercedes rushed to find her husband wounded, and he told her that Siscar shot him. Another witness, barrio councilman Albino Manalo, heard the shots, saw Siscar fleeing with a shotgun, and upon reaching the victim, also heard Moises identify Siscar as his assailant before dying. Siscar eluded arrest for over five years.
The defense interposed alibi, claiming Siscar was in Calapan and later Batangas at the time of the shooting, a story corroborated by his mother and uncle. He explained his failure to surrender by stating he feared punishment during martial law. He also claimed ownership but prior loss of a pair of pants found at the crime scene.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved Siscar’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the qualifying circumstances of murder were established.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence compelling. The positive testimonies of eyewitness Juana Caringal and Albino Manalo, coupled with the dying declaration of the victim identifying Siscar as his assailant—admissible as part of the res gestae—conclusively established Siscar’s identity as the perpetrator. This positive identification rendered the defense of alibi, which the Court consistently regards as weak, unavailing. Furthermore, Siscar’s flight and evasion of arrest for over five years were properly considered by the trial court as indicative of consciousness of guilt, notwithstanding his claim of fear during martial law.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information—treachery and evident premeditation—were not proven. The record contained no evidence detailing the manner of attack to establish treachery, nor any proof of planning or preparation for evident premeditation. Consequently, lacking these qualifying circumstances, the crime committed was homicide, not murder. The penalty was thus modified to an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.