PEOPLE vs. ANCHETA (Criminal Law Review)

G.R. Nos. 138306-07. December 21, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPO1 EDUARDO ANCHETA Y RODIGOL, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:

The main witness for the prosecution, Jonathan Aromin, testified that on the night of 2 September 1993 he and his neighbor Julian Ancheta went to the house of the accused who lived just across them.  Julian told Jonathan to knock on the door first but when no one answered Julian did the knocking himself. When the accused opened the door, Jonathan immediately noticed that SPO1 Ancheta was armed with a gun. Intimidated, Jonathan began to move away. As he left the house of the accused, Jonathan suddenly heard two (2) shots which prompted him to hide behind the nearest wall. But when he looked back the accused SPO1 Ancheta was already aiming his revolver directly at his face and without hesitation shot him at close range.  Stunned by the gunshot wound, Jonathan momentarily blacked out but soon regained consciousness when his neighbor, Leonila Lopez, came to his aid and rushed him to the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. 

Leonila Lopez narrated that her house was right across the house of the accused, separated only by a narrow alley.  At around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of 2 September 1993 while she was preparing dinner, she was startled by the sound of two (2) gunshots coming from the house of the accused. She immediately told her children to go inside and as she was about to close her windows she saw Jonathan Aromin running towards her house, followed by the accused. She then saw the accused shoot Jonathan Aromin on the right cheek. After the accused left, she helped the hapless victim and brought him to the hospital. She was approximately a meter away when she witnessed the shooting. 

The defense of accused-appellant is that the death of Julian Ancheta and the injury of Jonathan Aromin were caused by the accidental gunshots which occurred when he and the deceased grappled for the gun. Thus, absent any intent to kill the victims, he could not be convicted of homicide or murder.

On the other hand, Jonathan Aromin sustained a gunshot wound on his right cheek which would have caused his death had it not been for the timely medical attention. Based on the number of bullet wounds and the location of the injuries sustained by the victims it is quite impossible to believe that such wounds were caused by two (2) accidental gunshots which ensued while the accused and the deceased wrestled for the gun. 

ISSUE:

Whether the accused is guilty of Murder.

RULING:

No, although SC affirm the factual findings of the trial court on the presence of "intent to kill," the SC believes that the killing of Julian Ancheta and the shooting of Jonathan Aromin were not qualified by treachery.

While it was established that accused-appellant intentionally shot his brother Julian, the witnesses never saw how the killing started. Treachery cannot be considered where the witnesses did not see the commencement of the assault and the importance of such testimonies cannot be overemphasized considering that treachery cannot be presumed nor established from mere suppositions. And where no particulars are shown as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, treachery can in no way be established. Hence, without the existence of treachery accused-appellant can only be convicted of homicide.

Neither was treachery established in the shooting of Jonathan Aromin. Two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. Both these circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself.