G.R. No. 229928 - People vs. Albino

Appellant Dexter Aspa Albino @ Toyay was charged for the killing of Marlon Dionzon Soriano based on a Charge by Information dated May 12, 2009.
The offense occurred in the municipality of Carigara, Province of Leyte, Philippines, where an altercation ensued following a benefit dance.

On May 9, 2009, residents, including the victim Marlon and his siblings, attended a benefit dance at Brgy. San Mateo, Carigara, Leyte.
During the dance, tension arose when the appellant’s group mingled with the locals, setting the stage for later conflict.
In the early hours around 12:45 AM on the following day, an altercation broke out just outside the dance area.
According to the prosecution, during the fracas, appellant drew a revolver and fired without any warning—shooting Marlon in the left chest at the level of the 7th intercostal space—leading to the victim’s death due to massive bleeding.
The benefit dance location was well illuminated by mercury lamps, allowing witnesses to identify the participants and providing clarity to the sequence of events.

Jerome Soriano, Marlon’s older brother, testified that he witnessed the moment when the confrontation escalated and clearly identified the appellant as the shooter.
Neighbor Arwin Terrado corroborated Jerome’s account, emphasizing the abrupt and unannounced shooting.
Additional testimonies by PO2 Noel M. Melgar (who blottered the incident), Gertrudes Soriano (mother of the victim who also testified regarding incurred funeral expenses), and Dr. Ma. Bella V. Profetana (detailing the medical cause of death) provided substantial support to the prosecution’s narrative.
The prosecution maintained that the use of an unlicensed firearm by the appellant did not merit an aggravating circumstance due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant denied committing the crime, claiming that during an altercation instigated by Jerome, he was boxed in and later felt a violent blow accompanied by a gunshot, which caused Marlon to fall.
Pablo Flores, a defense witness, corroborated the appellant’s version, asserting that the commotion and ensuing confusion contributed to the misidentification and wrongful association with the murder.

At trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a judgment on November 12, 2012, convicting the appellant of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, concurrently ordering significant civil and moral damages to be paid to the victim’s heirs.
The RTC based its verdict on the positive identification by prosecution witnesses and the determination that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery—where the victim was caught unaware.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in its September 13, 2016 decision affirmed the conviction with modifications: the appellant was barred from parole and all awarded damages were subjected to interest at 6% per annum.

The appellant sought to have his conviction downgraded from murder to homicide by arguing that the element of treachery was not sufficiently proven.
Both the appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) adopted their prior appellate briefs, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s review.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellant’s conviction for murder instead of downgrading it to homicide.
Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as required for a murder conviction under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, was proven beyond reasonable doubt.