People v. De Leon

G.R. No. 116232 (September 26, 1996)

Supreme Court reclassifies Ernesto G. De Leon's murder conviction to homicide due to lack of evidence.

Facts:

The accused-appellant, Ernesto G. De Leon, was charged with the murder of Albert Capistrano y Araullo. The incident occurred on March 1, 1992, at approximately 1:00 PM, in the residence of the Capistrano family in Malabon, Metro Manila. At the time, 14-year-old Alvin Capistrano was at home with his mother, Violeta, and sister, Agnes, when the accused-appellant arrived brandishing a gun and shouting, "Nasaan ang asawa ko?" (Where is my wife?).

The accused-appellant created a disturbance, throwing items around the house. In response to the chaos, Alvin went to fetch his father, who was attending a baptismal party nearby. Upon returning home with his father, they encountered the accused-appellant, who pointed a gun at Alvin's forehead before turning and shooting Albert Capistrano twice. Alvin witnessed his father fall to the ground and subsequently ran to seek help from neighbors.

The accused-appellant fled the scene and went into hiding. Prior to this incident, there had been previous altercations between the accused-appellant and the Capistrano family, where he had threatened them and pointed a gun at them on multiple occasions. A medico-legal officer confirmed that Albert Capistrano died from gunshot wounds.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime.

Arguments:

For the Accused-Appellant:

  • The accused-appellant contended that the trial court's conviction was based solely on the testimony of Alvin Capistrano, which he argued was inherently improbable and inconsistent with human experience. He questioned the logic of Alvin fetching his father to pacify him given their hostile relationship.
  • He also criticized Alvin's failure to defend himself and his father during the attack, arguing that it was unreasonable to expect a 14-year-old to confront an armed assailant.
  • The accused-appellant further claimed that the act of poking a gun at Alvin's head was not credible since Alvin did not sustain any injuries, and he argued that this was irrelevant to the murder charge.

For the Prosecution:

  • The prosecution maintained that Alvin's actions in fetching his father were natural and instinctive for a child in distress. They argued that the testimony of a minor should not be dismissed without proper grounds, especially in the absence of any motive to lie.
  • The prosecution asserted that the accused-appellant's actions constituted murder, emphasizing the need to consider the context of the attack and the history of threats made by the accused-appellant against the victim's family.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant but modified the charge from murder to homicide. The court found that while the evidence presented by the prosecution was credible, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established.

The court reasoned that treachery must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, requiring two conditions: (1) the use of means that ensured the offender's safety from any defensive acts by the victim, and (2) that these means were deliberately adopted. The court noted that the accused-appellant's sudden attack did not demonstrate premeditation or a calculated method to ensure the victim could not defend himself.

The court concluded that the crime committed was homicide, not murder, as the circumstances did not meet the legal definition of treachery. Consequently, the penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor as the minimum, and fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as the maximum.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The determination of treachery as a qualifying circumstance requires clear evidence of premeditated and deliberate actions that ensure the victim's inability to defend themselves.
  • The credibility of a witness, particularly a minor, should be respected unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
  • The court's assessment of witness credibility is given great weight unless it overlooks significant facts that could affect the outcome.