People v. Guillermo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Ceferino Guillermo harbored a grudge against the deceased Ronnie de la Cruz due to suspicion of an illicit relationship between Ronnie and Ceferino's wife, Carmen. Despite reconciliation efforts, the animosity persisted, leading to an altercation. Ronnie was sent away for a year for his safety but later returned home. On December 15, 1991, during a fellowship at a Pentecostal Church, Ronnie de la Cruz and Michael de la Cruz went outside to relieve themselves. Accused-appellant suddenly appeared and shot Ronnie point-blank with a Garand rifle. The bullets that hit Ronnie also struck Michael, who was two meters behind him. Ronnie died instantly, while Michael sustained wounds that would have been fatal had he not received timely medical treatment. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao found accused-appellant Ceferino Guillermo guilty of murder complexed with frustrated murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the victims' heirs and pay damages. The trial court relied on the positive testimonies of witnesses Michael de la Cruz and Eusebio de la Cruz, Jr., who identified the accused-appellant. The court also considered the testimony of Darlina Guillermo, who saw the accused-appellant fleeing the scene, and SPO3 Delfin Bullan, who testified that the accused-appellant surrendered the Garand rifle issued to him. The trial court dismissed claims of witness bias and rejected the defense of alibi. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed the decision, questioning the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the qualification of some witnesses, and the trial court's finding of murder complexed with frustrated murder, arguing it should have been homicide complexed with frustrated homicide. He specifically challenged the presence of treachery and evident premeditation.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the prosecution witnesses credible. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder complexed with frustrated murder instead of homicide complexed with frustrated homicide. Whether treachery was present in the commission of the crime. Whether evident premeditation was present in the commission of the crime. Whether the awards for actual damages were supported by competent proof.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime to murder with frustrated homicide. The award for actual damages was deleted due to lack of receipts. The dispositive portion stated: "WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with the modification that the accused-appellant is found guilty of the complex crime of murder with frustrated homicide and the award for actual damages in the amount of P18,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the deceased and P1,500.00 in favor of Michael de la Cruz is deleted."
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court found the testimonies of Michael de la Cruz and Eusebio de la Cruz, Jr. to be credible. While Michael, a minor of tender age, exhibited some inconsistencies regarding the exact location of the incident (inside or outside the church), these were considered minor and attributable to his age and limited mental capacity. His positive identification of the accused-appellant as the assailant remained steadfast. The Court also found Darlina Guillermo's testimony, which identified the accused-appellant based on his dog, to be corroborative. Eusebio Jr.'s identification was also deemed reliable due to his familiarity with the accused-appellant as a childhood friend and neighbor, despite the assailant wearing a bonnet. The retraction of witness Rogelio Guillermo was discounted as other witnesses provided positive identification. On the conviction of murder complexed with frustrated murder: The Court agreed that the crime committed was a complex crime, but clarified it as murder with frustrated homicide. The trial court's finding of murder was sustained due to the presence of treachery. However, the Court found that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven, as the time of determination to commit the crime and acts indicating adherence to that determination were not established. The altercation four years prior was deemed too remote to prove evident premeditation. The Court noted that Michael de la Cruz was wounded solely because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, thus the crime against him was frustrated homicide, not qualified by treachery. On the presence of treachery: The Court found that treachery was present. Although the attack was frontal, the victim was attending a church fellowship, unaware of the impending danger. The accused-appellant appeared suddenly and fired at close range, leaving the victim defenseless. The fact that the assailant wore a bonnet indicated a conscious adoption of a method to ensure the commission of the crime, thus satisfying the requisites of treachery: the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and the offender consciously adopted the means of attack. On the presence of evident premeditation: The Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of evident premeditation. The prosecution failed to prove the time when the accused-appellant determined to commit the crime, nor did it present acts clearly indicating that he clung to his determination. The fact that he was a CAFGU member and habitually carried a gun did not constitute an act demonstrating adherence to a premeditated plan. The prior altercation was too distant to establish evident premeditation. On the award of actual damages: The Court deleted the awards for actual damages. It held that to justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, duly supported by receipts. The P18,000.00 for death expenses and P1,500.00 for medical expenses were not supported by proper receipts, hence they were disallowed.
Main Doctrine
Evident premeditation was not established as the time of determination to commit the crime and acts indicating adherence to that determination were not proven. However, treachery was present, qualifying the killing to murder. The crime committed was a complex crime of murder with frustrated homicide, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua due to the prohibition against the death penalty at the time of the offense. Awards for actual damages require competent proof supported by receipts.