People v. Esmana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 3, 1995, at around 7:00 PM, Adelino Lastimoso and Rogelio Armada heard dogs barking outside Armada's house. They went downstairs to investigate. Adelino stood two meters ahead of Rogelio. Suddenly, Rogelio heard gunfire and saw Adelino had been shot. Rogelio illuminated the faces of Galing Esmana and Daga Ginang, about ten meters away, armed with firearms. They fled when they saw the flashlight. Rogelio knew them as neighbors. Adelino, who was shot in the abdomen and breast, told his wife, Serianing, that Esmana and Ginang shot him. Adelino was taken for medical treatment and died the following day due to cardio-respiratory arrest and infection caused by the gunshot wound. Procedural History: An information for murder was filed against Galing Esmana and Daga Ginang. Both pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, convicted them of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay civil damages. The accused appealed. The Petition: Accused-appellants contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, in the alternative, argued for conviction of homicide instead of murder due to lack of proof of evident premeditation and treachery.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Whether evident premeditation and treachery attended the commission of the crime to qualify the killing to murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the RTC, finding the accused Galing Esmana and Daga Ginang guilty of murder qualified by treachery. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The award of exemplary damages was deleted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence and positive identification: The Court reiterated the rule that the trial court's evaluation of witness credibility is accorded the highest respect. Rogelio Armada's identification of the accused-appellants as the perpetrators was found convincing, supported by the illumination from his flashlight and his familiarity with them as neighbors. His testimony was credible as he had no ill-motive to falsely impute the crime. The defense of alibi was rendered impotent by the positive and categorical identification of the accused-appellants by the prosecution eyewitness. The Court found no reason to doubt the eyewitness's account of seeing the accused-appellants flee the scene with firearms immediately after the gunshot. On evident premeditation and treachery: The Court found that evident premeditation could not be considered because no evidence was presented to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time elapsed after the determination of the commission of the crime. However, treachery was found to be present. The two conditions for treachery were met: (1) the employment of means of execution that gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. The victim was unarmed, defenseless, and unaware of the attack at the bottom of the stairs, and was shot without provocation or opportunity to defend himself, thus establishing the treacherous nature of the killing. The presence of treachery qualified the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Since no other mitigating or aggravating circumstances were present, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court also noted that the award of exemplary damages by the trial court was deleted for lack of basis, as exemplary damages are to be imposed only when the crime is committed with aggravating circumstances, and none were proven in this case.
Main Doctrine
Treachery was present in the case at bar, as the victim was unarmed, defenseless, and unaware of the fate awaiting him, and was shot without provocation and without an opportunity to defend himself. Evident premeditation cannot be considered due to lack of evidence showing how and when the plan to kill was hatched. The award of exemplary damages must be deleted for lack of basis in the absence of any generic aggravating circumstance.