People vs. Malejana

Treachery may be appreciated even when a warning shot precedes the fatal shots if the interval is insufficient to allow the victim to prepare a defense, and positive identification by credible eyewitnesses prevails over inconclusive expert testimony.

On July 28, 1990, in Barangay Marifosque, Pilar, Sorsogon, Janus "Bong" Roces was fatally shot. Appellant PFC Floro Malejana, a member of the Pilar Philippine National Police (PNP), approached a group including the victim, inquired about him, fired a warning shot, and then discharged his firearm multiple times at the victim, hitting him thrice and causing his death.

• The Incident: On July 28, 1990, at around 7:15 p.m., Andres Madrid, Antonio Sy, Samuel Andrade, and others were seated by a parked jeep in Marisfoque, Pilar, Sorsogon. Appellant approached, asked for Roces, and upon seeing him, brandished an armalite rifle, fired a warning shot in the air, and then fired at least five times at the victim, hitting him thrice. Appellant then left the scene.
• Prosecution Evidence: Three eyewitnesses positively identified appellant as the shooter. PNP property custodian Domingo Luvidioro testified that appellant was issued an M-16 armalite with 260 rounds of ammunition, which was returned with 30 rounds missing. Dr. Jose Luna's autopsy report indicated the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds to the chest.
• Defense Evidence: Ballistics expert Vicente R. De Vera testified that the wounds were more consistent with a .45 caliber pistol, opining that an armalite fired at 1.5 meters would cause more massive destruction. On cross-examination, however, De Vera admitted he could not categorically rule out an armalite as the weapon used, acknowledging that an armalite could inflict the victim's wounds.
• Appellant's Defense: Appellant admitted approaching the victim but claimed Roces attempted to strike him; he allegedly fired a warning shot, reprimanded the group, and left.

• Reasonable Doubt: Petitioner argued that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the ballistics expert's testimony disproved the use of an armalite, thereby discrediting the prosecution eyewitnesses' testimonies as fabrications.
• Treachery: Petitioner maintained that treachery was improperly appreciated because the victim and his companions saw appellant carrying an armalite, and the warning shot served as sufficient warning, giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Respondent countered that the eyewitnesses had no improper motive to testify falsely and positively identified the appellant, prevailing over weak denials and alibi.
• Treachery: Respondent argued that the attack was sudden and unexpected; the brief interval between the warning shot and the fatal shots did not afford the victim any real opportunity to defend himself.

• Credibility of Evidence: Whether the accused's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the defense expert's testimony contradicting the use of an armalite rifle.
• Treachery: Whether treachery was properly appreciated despite the accused firing a warning shot before the fatal shots.

• Credibility of Evidence: The conviction was affirmed. Expert testimony is not binding on courts and must be weighed like any other testimony. The defense expert's testimony was inconclusive because he failed to consider the distance and relative position of the attacker, ultimately failing to categorically rule out an armalite. Positive identification by credible witnesses, absent any showing of improper motive, prevails over weak alibi and denials.
• Treachery: Treachery was correctly appreciated. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack that deprives the victim of any real chance to defend himself. A warning shot does not negate treachery if the interval of time between the warning and the fatal shots is insufficient to put the victim on guard. Here, the interval was less than ten seconds. Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim is forewarned, provided the execution of the attack makes defense impossible.

• Credibility of Trial Court Findings — Appellate courts will generally not disturb the trial court's findings on witness credibility, the latter being in a better position to observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, unless facts of substance and value were overlooked.
• Weight of Expert Testimony — Courts are not bound to submit their findings to expert testimony; they are free to weigh it and give or refuse it any value as proof. The probative force of expert testimony lies in the facts and reasons supporting the conclusion, not merely the expert's opinion.
• Treachery — The essence is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring commission without risk to the aggressor. Treachery may be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned, provided the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself. A frontal attack can be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim.
• Alibi — The weakest defense; to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime.
• Passion and Obfuscation — Requires: (1) an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time.

• "The courts of justice, however, are not bound to submit their findings necessarily to such testimony; they are free to weigh them, and they can give or refuse to give them any value as proof, or they can even counterbalance such evidence with other elements of conviction which may have been adduced during the trial."
• "The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor."
• "Having the opportunity to observe them, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court."

• People v. Flores, 252 SCRA 31 (1996) — Followed regarding the principle that appellate courts will not disturb trial court findings on witness credibility.
• US v. Trono, 3 Phil. 213 (1904) — Followed regarding the weight and binding effect of expert testimony.
• People v. Pinuela, 396 SCRA 561 (2003); People v. Rivera, 384 SCRA 12 (2002) — Followed regarding the principle that treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned.
• People v. Alfon, 399 SCRA 64 (2003) — Followed regarding a frontal attack being treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Murder. Applied as the crime committed by the appellant.
• Article 63, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty when neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances are present. Applied to impose reclusion perpetua, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties for murder (reclusion perpetua to death).

Reynato S. Puno, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato C. Corona, Cancio C. Garcia.