G.R. No. L-75268, January 29, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTEBAN MELGAR Y CORNEL and GERARDO LANGUISAN, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused Gerardo Languisan and Esteban Melgar were charged with murder for the stabbing death of Jaime Duque on October 20, 1976, in Quezon City. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. Melgar was tried separately, as Languisan remained at large, and was acquitted in 1979 due to the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Languisan was arrested in 1980, pleaded not guilty, and after trial, was convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court in 1981 and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
The prosecution evidence established that on the night of the incident, the victim was seated in the front passenger seat of a jeepney. An argument ensued between the victim and Melgar after the jeepney left a queue. Melgar then conversed with Languisan. Subsequently, Languisan boarded the same jeepney and sat directly behind the victim. Upon reaching the jeepney’s terminal in Libis, and as the vehicle stopped, Languisan, while still seated at the back, stabbed the victim at the nape with a double-bladed knife. The victim died the following day from the wound.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Gerardo Languisan for the crime of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Angelito Mata, the jeepney driver, to be credible and sufficient to establish Languisan’s guilt. Mata clearly saw, through his rear-view mirror, Languisan stab the victim from behind. This account was consistent with the medico-legal report detailing a fatal stab wound at the back of the victim’s neck. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated.
The Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia), which qualified the killing as murder. Treachery exists when the offender employs means of execution that ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. Here, the attack was sudden and from behind, directed at the victim’s nape while he was seated and unaware. The victim had no opportunity to defend himself, eliminating any risk to the assailant. Thus, the crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery.
Regarding the penalty, the Court applied the constitutional provision abolishing the death penalty. For murder absent any modifying circumstance, the penalty is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to eighteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The indemnity to the victim’s heirs was also increased to thirty thousand pesos.