People v. Cabareño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 13, 1997, during a barangay fiesta in Lambunao, Iloilo, a commotion occurred near a store. While attempting to pacify a quarrel between two individuals, Nerio Casaquite was shot by Wilbert Cabareño (appellant) with a firearm. The victim sustained a gunshot wound to the back and later died. The prosecution alleged that the shooting was done with deliberate intent to kill and by means of treachery. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City found appellant Wilbert Cabareño guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The RTC relied on the testimony of a lone eyewitness, Absalon Lego, and found the defense's claim that another person, Tayok Estiva, fired the fatal shot to be improbable. The court also ruled that the killing was qualified by treachery. The Petition: Appellant appealed the RTC decision, arguing that the RTC erred in finding the defense improbable and in convicting him based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution eyewitness.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in finding the defense's claim that Tayok Estiva fired the fatal shot highly improbable, and the credibility of the lone eyewitness. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery. Whether the appellant is liable for the death of the victim even if the intended target was another person.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the RTC. It convicted the appellant of homicide, not murder, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The award of civil indemnities was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defense's claim that Estiva was the shooter and the credibility of the lone eyewitness: The Court upheld the trial court's rejection of the defense's claim that Tayok Estiva fired the fatal shot, primarily based on the eyewitness testimony of Lego, who positively identified the appellant. The Court affirmed the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the lone prosecution eyewitness, Absalon Lego, reiterating that the evaluation of witness credibility is primarily within the purview of the trial court. The Court found no sufficient reason to overturn the trial court's findings, despite the delay in Lego's reporting to the authorities, explaining that fear can be a valid reason for such delay. On the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance and the classification of the crime: The Court ruled that treachery was not sufficiently proven to qualify the crime as murder, as the prosecution failed to establish that the means of attack were deliberately and consciously adopted without risk to the assailant. Due to the lack of proven treachery, the Court concluded that the crime committed was homicide, not murder, citing Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellant was therefore convicted of homicide, with the corresponding penalty of reclusion temporal. On the applicability of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court applied Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that criminal liability is incurred by committing a felony, even if the wrongful act done be different from that which was intended. Therefore, the appellant was responsible for the death of Nerio Casaquite, even if his intended target was allegedly Aurelio Catedrilla, as the crime of homicide would have been committed regardless of the intended victim.
Main Doctrine
Treachery requires proof that the means of attack were deliberately and consciously adopted without risk to the assailant. A conviction for murder based on treachery cannot stand if these elements are not sufficiently established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.