People v. Bachar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 9, 1984, at past 7:00 PM, Nathaniel Boco, Danny Daza, and Manuel Contado were drinking wine. At past 10:00 PM, appellant Romeo Bachar arrived, introduced himself as a military member, became angry when not believed, threatened them, and left. He returned, hit Danny Daza with a glass, leading to a fight where Nathaniel Boco also joined. Appellant, sensing he was overpowered, ran away, shouting he would return. Around 11:00 PM, appellant returned with an Armalite rifle. The trio went to the second floor of Jesus Daza's house, leaving the door ajar. Appellant went upstairs, removed a fluorescent bulb, and tried to force the door open. He shouted for Danny Lopez. Jesus Daza inquired about his wants, and a gunshot followed, killing Jesus Daza. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Eastern Samar found the accused guilty of Murder and sentenced him to death, to indemnify the heirs, and to pay costs. The records were elevated for review. Due to the reduction of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua under the 1987 Constitution, the accused manifested his desire to continue with the case as an appealed case. The Petition: The appellant claims the trial court erred in not acquitting him due to reasonable doubt and in finding the offense to be murder qualified by treachery. He argues the prosecution's evidence contained incredible allegations and inconsistent statements.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt and the credibility of witnesses. Whether the offense committed is murder, specifically addressing if it was qualified by treachery.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with modification. The appellant is found guilty of homicide, not murder, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Costs are against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reasonable doubt and the credibility of witnesses: The Court affirmed the trial court's findings regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses, stating that factual conclusions of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor, are not to be disturbed unless there is proof of misappreciation of evidence. The Court found no cogent reason to disagree with the trial court's findings. The alibi of the accused was deemed unworthy of credence and could not stand against the positive identification by prosecution witnesses, especially since the appellant had engaged in a prior altercation with Danny Daza. The Court also noted that the alibi was not supported by clear and satisfactory evidence and appeared easily fabricated and unbelievable. On the issue of treachery qualifying the crime to murder: The Court found that the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The prosecution failed to present any eyewitness who testified to the manner in which the victim was attacked. The prosecution witnesses only testified to seeing the appellant climb the stairs and hearing a gunshot after the victim inquired about his intentions. Nobody knew the victim had been shot until his body was discovered the next day. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that treachery requires proof of the means or method employed to insure execution without risk to the offender, and it cannot be deduced from mere presumption or speculation. Therefore, absent the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime committed is homicide, not murder, as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
Treachery cannot be appreciated in the absence of eyewitness testimony regarding the manner of attack, and cannot be deduced from mere presumption or speculation. Without treachery, the crime committed is homicide, not murder.