VS. JAIME REYES Y AROGANSIA, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused JAIME REYES y AROGANSIA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified by evident premeditation defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the attendant generic circumstance of nocturnity and hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the victim Meynardo Altobar y Menguito the amount of P 90,000.00 for and as actual and compensatory damages inclusive of expenses incident to the burial, P 100,000.00 for and as moral damages, P 50,000.00 for and as exemplary damages and the further sum of P 20,000.00 for expenses of litigation inclusive of attorney's fee, all without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited in full with the period of his preventive imprisonment." [22] Hence, this appeal wherein appellant imputes four supposed errors to the trial court, namely, (1) in finding that treachery attended the killing of the victim Meynardo Altobar, Jr.; (2) in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation to qualify the crime to murder; (3) in appreciating nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime; and (4) in convicting him of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [23] Appellants faults the trial court for holding that the killing of victim Altobar, Jr. was attended by treachery. He contends that when he openly approached the victim and asked him, "Ikaw ba si Jun Boy?" the latter must already been alerted and forewarned of an impending attack. Moreover, the attack was frontal as shown by the fact that the victim was hit near the neck [24] above the left clavicle. The Court disagrees. The prosecution evidence meets the requisites for appreciating alevosia in the commission of the crime, viz.: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) appellant consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of the attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the letter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself. [25] As argued by the prosecution, the fact that appellant approached the victim and asked him if he was "Jun Boy" could not have served as a warning to the victim of an impending harm. It could not have taken appellant more than three seconds to ask the question and immediately after getting a positive response, he fired at the victim. [26] This is sustained by reliable witness accounts. Prosecution witness Iluminado Broas lucidly explained: "Q: Do you recall of (sic) any unusual incident which happened on that particular occasion while in the process of