G.R. No. 137277 ; December 20, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO ALMENDRAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alfredo Almendras was charged with the murder of Criselda Manidlangan, his uncle’s common-law wife. The prosecution’s primary witness was the victim’s nine-year-old daughter, Diana, who testified that in the early morning of June 4, 1996, she saw appellant and two other men take her mother from an outdoor toilet. The men dragged Criselda to a nearby road, where Diana later found her mother’s body with multiple wounds. Appellant initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty during trial, invoking the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, and passion and obfuscation. He claimed he intended to confront his uncle, Leoncio, for desecrating his father’s tomb, and in the ensuing altercation, he mistakenly stabbed Criselda, thinking she was his uncle attacking him with a piece of wood.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to death. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender but found it offset by the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. It also ruled that the killing was attended by abuse of superior strength and cruelty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of murder, qualified by treachery, and properly imposed the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery with the required moral certainty. The lone eyewitness, Diana Manidlangan, did not witness the actual killing; she only saw the dragging of the victim and was ordered to go to sleep before the fatal assault occurred. Consequently, the manner of attack was not established, and treachery could not be presumed. The Court also found that the trial court erred in its procedure regarding the plea of guilty, as it did not conduct a proper “searching inquiry” into the voluntariness and consequences of the plea as required for capital offenses. Furthermore, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated, but the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not, as it was not shown to have been deliberately sought to facilitate the crime. With no qualifying circumstance proven, the crime is homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 16 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity and actual damages were affirmed.