Facts:

The case involves Oscar Perez as the appellant and the People of the Philippines as the appellee. The events leading to the case transpired on April 28, 1995, in Maria Ramona Subdivision, Barangay Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan. Ildefonso Balite and his wife, Rowena, resided in a tenement housing unit adjacent to that of the Santos family, which included Oscar Perez, his wife, and his parents-in-law. The two families shared an electrical supply, but on the night of the incident, Ildefonso noticed an electrical spark from the overloaded socket supplying power to the Santos unit. Concerned for safety, he sought permission from Emerencia Santos to temporarily disconnect their power supply, but she refused. This refusal led to a confrontation between Ildefonso and Oscar, who was awakened by Emerencia. After a heated exchange, Ildefonso left the scene, followed by Rowena. Oscar, however, pursued Ildefonso and called out to him. When Ildefonso turned to face Oscar, he was shot in the ch...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• The victim, Ildefonso Balite, and his wife Rowena lived in a tenement housing unit in Barangay Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan.
• The accused, Oscar Perez, lived next door with his in-laws, the Santos spouses. The two families shared an electrical connection, with the Balite household supplying power to the Santos household through an improvised extension wire.

The Incident

• On April 28, 1995, at around 9:00 p.m., Ildefonso returned home with two companions, Gardo and Dolphy. He noticed an electrical spark from the overloaded socket supplying power to the Santos household.
• Ildefonso asked Emerencia Santos (Oscar’s mother-in-law) for permission to temporarily disconnect the power to prevent a potential hazard. Emerencia refused and woke up Oscar.
• Oscar confronted Ildefonso, leading to a heated argument and physical altercation. Artemio Santos (Oscar’s father-in-law) intervened, and Ildefonso left the scene to go to his mother-in-law’s house.
• Oscar followed Ildefonso surreptitiously. When Ildefonso stopped upon being called by Oscar, the latter suddenly drew a gun and shot Ildefonso twice—first in the chest and then in the head—killing him instantly.

Medical Findings

• Dr. Alberto Bondoc conducted an autopsy and found two fatal gunshot wounds: one on the right temple and another on the left chest. The wounds indicated that the shots were fired at close range (4-6 inches).
• The cause of death was brain injuries and hemorrhagic shock due to the gunshot wounds.

Legal Proceedings

• Rowena Balite and Maricel Santos (Rowena’s sister) gave statements to the police detailing the incident.
• Oscar was charged with murder under an Information alleging treachery, evident premeditation, and the use of a firearm. He pleaded not guilty during arraignment.

Defense’s Version

• Oscar claimed that Ildefonso and his companions were drunk and aggressive. He alleged that Ildefonso disconnected the power supply and threatened him. During a struggle, a gunshot went off, but Oscar could not recall who fired the shot.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Treachery (Alevosia): The Court found that the killing was attended by treachery. The victim was unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself. The attack was sudden and unexpected, with Oscar shooting Ildefonso at close range after calling him to stop. The second shot to the head, while the victim was already down, further demonstrated the deliberate and conscious adoption of means to ensure the killing without risk to the accused.

2. Evident Premeditation and Use of Firearm: The Court agreed with the trial court that evident premeditation was not proven. There was no evidence that Oscar had sufficient time to reflect on the consequences of his actions. Additionally, the use of a firearm could not be considered a special aggravating circumstance because the Information did not allege that the firearm was unlicensed.

3. Murder vs. Homicide: The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the crime should be classified as homicide. The presence of treachery elevated the crime to murder. The fact that the victim was shot facing the appellant did not negate treachery, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim no chance to defend himself.

4. Damages: The Court upheld the award of civil indemnity but declined to award moral damages due to the lack of proof of mental or physical suffering by the victim’s heirs. Exemplary damages were awarded due to the presence of treachery.