G.R. No. L-65555 May 22, 1985
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTINOMENES DUERO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Antinomenes Duero was charged with murder for the stabbing death of Alfonso Magabili on November 24, 1981, in Madrid, Surigao del Sur. The prosecution presented no eyewitness to the actual stabbing. Instead, conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. Witnesses Juliano Cuahao and Segundiano Miranda testified that immediately after hearing the victim cry out, they saw Duero running from the scene holding a bolo. Cuahao noted Duero’s distinctive shirt, and Miranda focused a flashlight on him. Pat. Marcial Bucallon pursued but failed to intercept the fleeing appellant. Alberto Duero, the appellant’s father, surrendered a bolo identified by witnesses as the weapon used. The defense was alibi, claiming Duero was sleeping at his grandmother’s house half a kilometer away, corroborated by his father and grandmother.
The trial court convicted Duero of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. On automatic review, the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, finding treachery in the “suddenness of the attack… under cover of darkness,” and certified the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the crime committed is murder qualified by treachery or simple homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide, deleting the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court upheld the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to establish Duero’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in accordance with Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. The combination of circumstances—Duero’s immediate flight with a bolo, his positive identification by witnesses near the scene, and the surrender of the weapon by his father—formed an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that he was the perpetrator. The Court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility and found the defense of alibi weak and unpersuasive against positive identification.
However, the Court ruled that treachery was not proven. The legal logic is that treachery (alevosia) requires proof of the specific means, methods, or forms employed by the offender to ensure the execution of the crime without risk from any defense the victim might make. Since no eyewitness testified to the manner of attack, the record was devoid of any evidence showing how the assault was carried out. Treachery cannot be presumed from the suddenness of the attack or the cover of darkness alone; it must be proven as clearly as the crime itself. Absent such proof, Duero was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the crime was simple homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and the civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.