GR L 65483; (May, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-65483. May 25, 1988.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SILVINO VILLANUEVA y TRINIDAD, VICENTE AGGABAO y DATUN, ALEXANDER DOMINGO y MARIANO and JOHN DOE, accused; SILVINO VILLANUEVA y TRINIDAD, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Silvino Villanueva, a security guard, was convicted of murder for the killing of Pedro Acosta. The prosecution’s version, as accepted by the trial court, was that on the night of June 14, 1981, Villanueva and his co-accused, armed with a shotgun and clubs, intercepted and chased Acosta and his companions. During the chase, Villanueva fired his shotgun, fatally hitting Acosta. The defense initially presented a story that Acosta was shot while attempting to steal a battery, but this was discredited by police testimony showing the scene was staged. The defense then shifted to a claim of accidental shooting, alleging Acosta was shot during a struggle for the firearm after an ambush.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the killing was attended by treachery to qualify it as murder, or if it constitutes homicide only. A secondary issue involves the credibility of the appellant’s defense of accident.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, finding the appellant guilty of homicide, not murder. The Court meticulously examined the evidence, rejecting the defense of accident as inconsistent and unreliable. The appellant’s vacillating testimony and the discredited initial cover-up story undermined his credibility. However, the Court disagreed with the finding of treachery. The legal logic is that for treachery to exist, the means of attack must be consciously adopted to ensure execution without risk from the victim’s defense. The facts showed Acosta and his group were forewarned by the armed confrontation and were actively fleeing, indicating the attack was not insidious. The shooting appeared impulsive, arising from the heat of the chase, not from a deliberate plan to employ a method that would eliminate any opportunity for defense. Consequently, the crime is homicide, qualified by none of the circumstances under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Villanueva to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and increased the civil indemnity to P30,000.00.