### Facts:
1. **Incident Date and Charges**:
– On September 2, 1997, at around 6:30 PM, in Barangay San Roque II, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Orlando Javier shot and killed Roberto Sunga.
– Javier was charged with murder, the Information was filed on September 4, 1997.
2. **Witnesses Testimonies**:
– **Prosecution Witnesses**: Eight witnesses were presented including Benedict Sta. Maria, Bobby Matira, and Louie Lingas who testified seeing the shooting.
– **Ben Sta. Maria**: Saw Javier shoot Sunga on a tricycle they were riding together. Victim fell out, pleaded for life, Javier’s gun misfired.
– **Police Officers**: SPO2 Reguyal investigated, found empty .45 caliber shell near Javier’s house.
– **Forensic Evidence**: Dr. Manzanida, conducted autopsy, confirmed a gunshot wound in the chest.
– **Circumstantial Evidence**: Rodrigo Quirante saw Javier with .45 gun hours prior; testified to his aggressive behavior.
– **Other Witnesses**: Confirmed presence of .45 caliber shell at the scene; Josefine Sunga confirmed victim’s income and burial expenses.
3. **Defense Evidence**:
– **Rommel Acosta**: Neighbor, helped Javier off tricycle; testified victim got angry over food fare, Javier could not pay.
– **Accused’s Testimony**: Javier, retired NAPOLCOM employee, claimed self-defense, said altercation arose as Sunga demanded fare. Javier claimed he fired only after Sunga hit him.
4. **Procedural History**:
– RTC (March 2, 2000): Convicted Javier of murder, sentenced to death. Ordered indemnity of P50,000 and moral damages of P100,000. Javier appealed.
– **Appeal Process**: Raised errors on not explicitly stating aggravating circumstances, and argued if guilty, should be for homicide, not murder.
### Issues:
1. **Whether Treachery Qualifies the Killing as Murder**:
– Did the facts establish that treachery was present during the killing?
2. **Appropriateness of the Death Penalty**:
– If no treachery, should the death penalty still apply for the crime committed?
3. **Existence of Aggravating Circumstances**:
– Was use of an unlicensed firearm proven and considered, even if not explicitly mentioned in the Information?
### Court’s Decision:
1. **Treacherous Killing (Treachery)**:
– No adequate proof of treachery; no detailed account of attack initiation.
– Witness testimonies lacked details on how aggression started, just observed aftermath.
– Found that incident followed heated altercation over fare; sudden attack does not equal treachery.
– **Ruling**: Did not qualify the killing as murder due to lack of treachery.
2. **Death Penalty**:
– Without treachery, reduced crime to homicide. Death penalty inappropriate under these findings.
3. **Aggravating Circumstances**:
– Use of unlicensed firearm was not alleged in Information thus not considered.
– **Final Sentence**: Guilty of homicide; penalty modified to reclusion temporal, medium period (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months).
– Ordered payment of P50,000 indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, and P20,000 in actual damages.
### Doctrine:
– **Treachery must be Proved**: Explicit, substantial evidence required to prove treachery’s presence; it cannot be hypothesized or presumed.
– **Altercation Negates Treachery**: A sudden attack following provocation does not fulfill “treachery” even if unexpected.
### Class Notes:
– **Key Elements/Concepts**:
– **Murder and Homicide Distinction**: Article 248 outlines murder with treachery; otherwise, the default is homicide (Article 249).
– **Indeterminate Sentence Law**: Imposing penalties considers the period’s medium range for reclusion temporal; prision mayor in absence of modifying circumstances.
– **Treachery Requirement**: Circumstances of attack onset must be explicit for a treachery ruling.
– **Statutes**:
– **Article 248, Revised Penal Code**: Defines murder with qualifying circumstances.
– **Article 249, Revised Penal Code**: Defines homicide without qualifying circumstances.
– **Republic Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law)**: Guides the imposition of mixed penalties.
### Historical Background:
– This case highlights evolving jurisprudence on establishing treachery and its implications for applying capital punishment within Philippine legal context.
– It reflects on judicial interpretation’s depth in balancing witness testimony against qualifying criminal circumstances, reaffirming rigorous standards in capital offense rulings.
Leave a Reply