GR 129695; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129695 March 17, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO TABONES @ “YAPE,” MARIO CAILLO and SAMUEL SERONA, accused, EDUARDO TABONES @ “YAPE,” appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that in the early morning of May 15, 1994, Marlon Lim and Arnold Legones were accosted by appellant Eduardo Tabones and his companions, Samuel Serona and Mario Caillo. Appellant boxed the victim, causing him to fall. Serona and Caillo then held the victim’s hands while he lay prostrate, and appellant stabbed him in the chest with a bladed weapon. The victim died hours later from the wound. Appellant was charged with Murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.
The defense presented an alibi. Appellant claimed he was with his mother and a co-vendor buying and transporting fish at the time of the incident, only learning of the stabbing later. The trial court rejected the alibi, finding the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Arnold Legones credible. It convicted appellant of Murder, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation to convict appellant of Murder.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s criminal liability but modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court held that the qualifying circumstances were not proven with the required moral certainty. For evident premeditation, the prosecution failed to prove: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow reflection. The sudden encounter on the road negated any proof of prior planning or reflection.
Regarding treachery, the Court ruled it was not established. While the attack was sudden, the victim was forewarned of the danger from the moment he was accosted and boxed by appellant. The holding of his arms by the two companions occurred after the initial aggression, when the victim was already on the ground. This sequence did not show that the mode of attack was deliberately adopted to ensure execution without risk to the assailants arising from any defense the victim might make. The qualifying circumstances being absent, the killing constituted Homicide, not Murder. The penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence, and the civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.