G.R. No. 138265 ; May 29, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGER LAMASAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of July 15, 1997, in Mina, Iloilo, an altercation occurred at the house of Gerardo Pasamanero. Accused-appellant Roger Lamasan arrived, provoked Barangay Captain Rolando Parreñas, Jr. (the victim) and Gelacio Aloquiña, and attempted to draw a firearm. The victim and Aloquiña subdued him, and the firearm was surrendered to the police. After a settlement, Lamasan was escorted to the police station but escaped en route. Later that night, while the victim was leaving a wake, he was shot and killed. Eyewitness Gelacio Aloquiña identified Lamasan, standing about four meters away and holding a firearm, as the assailant. The prosecution established that Lamasan was not a licensed firearm holder.
The defense presented alibi, claiming Lamasan was brought to a sitio by police after the initial incident, had supper at home, slept, and was later awakened to man the police radio room, where he was subsequently detained. He denied owning a firearm or shooting the victim. The Regional Trial Court convicted Lamasan of murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were proven to convict the accused-appellant of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court found the prosecution successfully proved Lamasan’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the positive identification by eyewitness Aloquiña, who had a clear view due to sufficient illumination, rendering the defense of alibi weak and unpersuasive.
However, the qualifying circumstances were not established. Treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The prosecution failed to prove how the attack commenced; the lone gunshot, without details on the victim’s posture or awareness, does not conclusively show that the accused employed a method that deliberately ensured the victim had no opportunity for self-defense. Evident premeditation requires proof of: (1) the time the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating persistence in that determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to reflect upon the consequences. The two-hour interval between the initial altercation and the shooting, without evidence of planning or cool reflection, is insufficient to prove this circumstance.
Thus, the crime committed is homicide, aggravated by the use of an unlicensed firearm. The penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate sentence of 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The awards for actual damages (P129,330.00), civil indemnity (P50,000.00), and moral damages (P50,000.00) were affirmed.