G.R. No. 233205 - People vs. Menil y Bongkit

The case involves the People of the Philippines versus SPO2 Edgardo Menil y Bongkit.
The accused was charged and subsequently convicted for the killing of Edwin B. Bagaslao under Article 248 (Murder) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The issue arose through an appeal filed under Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court challenging the conviction and penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and subsequently by the Court of Appeals (CA).

On December 28, 1993, around 1:30 a.m., at the ground floor of Sing-Sing Garden and Restaurant in Butuan City, an altercation occurred involving the accused and the victim, Edwin B. Bagaslao.
The prosecution charged that:

The accused, with intent to kill, employed force, violence, treachery, and premeditation.
Menil attacked and shot Bagaslao using a handgun, resulting in a gunshot wound to the victim’s head, which eventually led to his death.

The Information detailed that the shooting took place amid a confrontation that followed a heated argument initiated when Menil allegedly pushed Cynthia Rose Coloma (the victim’s common-law wife) because he was mistaken about her identity.

Cynthia Rose Coloma testified that she and Bagaslao had been leaving a Christmas party when Menil, who had been involved in a prior altercation with Bagaslao over a personal matter, pushed her and engaged in a heated argument with the victim.
Ricardo Oracion Torralba, a key witness, corroborated that he observed Menil shooting Bagaslao from about one meter away as the victim was being led down the sidewalk.
Dr. Renato Salas MuAez provided medical testimony describing the entry and exit wounds consistent with a gunshot, confirming the fatal injury.

The prosecution pointed out that the accused admitted under oath that the firearm used was his service weapon.
There was an indication of premeditation and deliberate planning, with the incident occurring immediately after a prior altercation that was calmed by a companion (Dodoy Plaza).

The accused claimed that on the evening of December 27, 1993, he was leisurely walking along Montilla Boulevard with friends and later joined them at Sing-Sing Garden for drinks.
He contended that a disagreement arose when Bagaslao and his companions became rowdy, prompting him to admonish them.
According to the defense, while descending the stairs after the gatherings, Bagaslao blocked Menil’s path and an altercation ensued when Bagaslao grabbed Menil’s revolver, leading to a physical struggle and an ensuing shot.

Menil denied having an intention to kill and stressed that the shooting was more a result of a sudden conflict rather than a deliberate, premeditated act.
The defense disputed the presence of treachery, arguing that the events occurred impulsively after an unresolved and heated confrontation.

The RTC found Menil guilty of murder, attributing the killing to treachery and evident premeditation.
The RTC sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua without the possibility of parole and imposed monetary awards for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.

The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the sentencing and the quantum of damages.
The appellate court maintained that the prosecution witnesses’ identifications were reliable despite the fourteen-year lapse between the incident and their testimonies.
The CA emphasized that the flight of the accused after the incident was indicative of guilt and supported the conclusion that treachery was present in the killing.

On review, the appellate court scrutinized whether the elements of treachery and evident premeditation were clearly proven.
The final determination was made that the evidence did not sufficiently prove treachery beyond reasonable doubt, raising an issue regarding the proper classification of the crime.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Menil for Murder.
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the element of treachery required for a murder conviction, or if the killing should be classified as Homicide instead.

Whether the sudden and impulsive nature of the shooting and the short lapse after the altercation precluded the possibility of a deliberate and premeditated attack.
If the evidence, including witness testimonies and the accused’s admission regarding the service firearm, allowed for the conclusive demonstration of treachery.
The significance of the accused’s flight after the incident as evidence of guilt versus the possibility of an impulsive act without calculated treachery.