G.R. No. 129371 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROMEO SANTIAGO, SOLIS DE LEON AND JAIME ILLESCAS, ACCUSED,JAIME ILLESCAS, ACCUSED-.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Jaime Illescas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder pursuant to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code because of the attending qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident pre-meditation and hereby sentenced him and imposed the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the heirs of the offended party in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as actual and moral damages and to set an example and sense of prevention to others not to commit the same offense." Hence, this appeal, with accused-appellant interposing the following errors: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS AMPLY AND SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THAT TREACHERY ATTENDED THE SHOOTING AND KILLING OF VICTIM ANTONIO DIONISIO. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS AMPLY AND SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THAT EVIDENT PREMEDITATION ATTENDED THE SHOOTING AND KILLING OF VICTIM ANTONIO DIONISIO. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS AMPLY AND SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THE PRESENCE OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN YOUR ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND THE TWO OTHER CO-ACCUSED IN THE SHOOTING AND KILLING OF VICTIM ANTONIO DIONISIO. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING YOUR ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER. The defense contends that treachery did not attend the commission of the crime considering that there was a previous altercation between the victim and one of the accused thereby logically putting the former on guard and forewarned at their second meeting. Besides, no evidence was presented by the prosecution to show how the killing was commenced. This contention is meritorious. There is treachery when the following conditions are present: (a) employment of means, methods or manner of execution to ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim, and (b) deliberate adoption by the offender of such means, methods or manner of execution. [2] In ruling that treachery attended the commission of the crime, the trial court held, thus: "x x x [T]he victim was killed by a single shot on the head while inside his car. There was treachery and premeditation because it was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no time to prepare for his defense much less to retaliate. Hence, the crime was murder." The trial court's conclusion has no basis considering that no evidence was presented to show that the accused deliberately employed means, methods or manner of execution to ensure their safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim. [3] In fact, the trial court merely concluded that the attack was treacherous because it was sudden and unexpected but it failed to cite any evidence to show that the attack was indeed sudden and unexpected. This Court has held that where all indicia tend to support the conclusion that the attack was sudden and unexpected but there are no precise data on this point, treachery cannot be taken into account. Treach