G.R. No. L-33320 - Gonzales vs. Philippine National Bank

The case involves the killing of Ricardo Junio on 29 July 1984 in Sitio Parongking, Barangay San Miguel, Calasiao, Pangasinan.
Two brothers, Artemio Aquino (a.k.a. Artem) and Ernesto Aquino (a.k.a. Erning), were charged with murder.
Ernesto Aquino was later apprehended, tried, and eventually acquitted, leaving Artemio Aquino as the sole appellant who was eventually arrested in December 1996.

According to prosecution witness Eduardo Barte, at around 6:00 in the evening on 29 July 1984, he was in Sitio Parongking to buy cigarettes.
While there, he observed Artemio Aquino engaging with Ricardo Junio who was seated on a bamboo bench.
After a brief casual conversation between the accused and victim, a sudden turning point occurred when Artemio Aquino approached Ricardo and stabbed him with a 10-inch bladed weapon.
The victim, wounded from the stab, stood up and attempted to escape by running towards a makeshift bamboo bridge, during which he fell from the bridge into the water.
Despite the pursuit by Ernesto Aquino, the victim was found already dead when Eduardo Barte went to render assistance.
Eduardo then removed the victim’s body from the water, placed it on the river bank, and informed Rosario, the wife of the deceased, about the incident.

Accused-appellant Artemio Aquino denied any participation in the killing.
He claimed that at the time of the incident he was at home taking care of his children, thereby providing an alibi.
The trial court, however, found Eduardo Barte’s testimony to be “direct, clear cut, straightforward and positive.”
Based on the evidence, the trial court convicted Artemio Aquino of murder by finding that treachery, as a qualifying circumstance, accompanied the commission of the crime.
The court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and imposed various monetary awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages.

The prosecution advanced the element of treachery, contending that the accused exploited means that left the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate.
Testimony did not show clearly how the attack was commenced or that Artemio deliberately adopted a means of execution to perfect treachery.
Additionally, discrepancies were noted, particularly in the explanation of how the altercation began, casting doubts on the sufficiency of evidence required for treachery.
Supporting evidence from prior cases, such as People v. Adoc, was cited to highlight the necessity of proving the deliberate adoption of means of execution in establishing treachery.

The trial court initially awarded P38,700.00 as actual damages to the heirs of the victim; however, this award was later contested.
The appellate court found that there were no receipts or substantial evidence to back the claimed actual damages.
As a result, the actual damages award was deleted and replaced with a nominal amount of P10,000.00 for the funeral expenses incurred.

Whether the testimony of prosecution witness Eduardo Barte, which directly identified the accused as the assailant, was credible and reliable.
Whether the trial court appropriately weighed the demeanor and conduct of the witness during the testimony.

Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the qualifying circumstance of treachery beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the elements of treachery, specifically the deliberate adoption of means that left the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate, were clearly established.

Whether the error in sustaining the evidence for treachery warranted a modification of the conviction from murder to homicide.
Whether the trial court erred in awarding actual damages of P38,700.00 without adequate documentary evidence.