G.R. No. 87636 - Gonzales vs. Macaraig, Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 87636)

Relevant Dates and Procedural Posture

Incident: About 1:30 a.m., December 28, 1993.
RTC Judgment convicting accused of Murder: November 26, 2013 (Criminal Case No. 6048, RTC Branch 3, Butuan City).
CA Decision: April 28, 2017 (CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 01266‑MIN), which affirmed conviction with modifications to damages and maintained a finding of treachery while rejecting evident premeditation.
Supreme Court action: Appeal by accused under Section 13(c), Rule 124; Supreme Court decision reviewed here (partial grant of appeal).

Factual Background (Prosecution Version)

Prosecution witnesses described events at or shortly after a Christmas party at Tip‑Topp Disco in Sing‑Sing Garden. Cynthia Coloma testified that, as she and victim Bagaslao were leaving, accused Menil pushed Coloma and a heated argument followed after Menil allegedly mistook Coloma for another woman. A third party, Dodoy Plaza, intervened and temporarily pacified the parties. While they were on the sidewalk leaving the premises, Menil allegedly came from behind and shot Bagaslao; Torralba, about one meter away, said he saw Menil shoot the victim. The victim was taken to the hospital and later died the same day from a gunshot wound entering the right zygomatic area with exit at the left parietal region, as attested by Dr. MuAez.

Factual Background (Defense Version)

Accused denied intention to kill. He testified that earlier that night he had been drinking with friends at Sing‑Sing Garden; Bagaslao and companions allegedly became rowdy and were admonished by the accused. On descent from the venue, a confrontation occurred: Bagaslao supposedly grabbed the accused’s service revolver, leading to a grapple during which a shot was fired. Accused claimed the shooting resulted from that struggle and denied deliberately killing Bagaslao. The accused also admitted that the firearm used was his service firearm.

RTC Disposition and Basis

The Regional Trial Court convicted Menil of Murder, finding that he acted with treachery and evident premeditation. The RTC emphasized: (1) accused’s admission regarding the shooting and ownership of the service firearm; (2) the presence of treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying circumstances; and (3) imposed penalty of reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole and awarded P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, and P25,000 exemplary damages to the heirs.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Modifications

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction for Murder but modified the damages. The CA sustained the identification of accused by prosecution witnesses, rejected the significance of the 14‑year gap between the incident and witness testimony (reasoning that violent incidents may be remembered reliably), and regarded accused’s flight or difficulty in locating him as indicative of guilt. The CA found treachery present but concluded that the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. The CA imposed reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole and increased awards to P75,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus P50,000 temperate damages, with 6% interest from finality.

Issue on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Main legal question: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming conviction for Murder — specifically whether treachery was sufficiently established so as to sustain classification as Murder (Article 248) rather than Homicide (Article 249).

Legal Standard on Treachery and Its Application

Treacherous mode of attack requires proof of two elements: (a) the use of means, methods or forms of attack that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and (b) that such means were deliberately or consciously adopted. Treachery is not to be presumed and must be established as conclusively as the crime itself. Sudden, impulsive acts or killings in the heat of the moment—especially those preceded by a heated altercation—ordinarily do not satisfy the requisite deliberation to characterize treachery.

Applying this standard to the record, the Supreme Court found the prosecution failed to prove the second element (deliberate adoption of a treacherous means). While the attack was sudden and the victim was deprived of a chance to defend, the shooting immediately followed a heated altercation between accused and victim that had been recently pacified. Given the brief interval between the quarrel and the shooting, the Court concluded the evidence pointed to an impulsive act rather than a deliberately planned, treacherous mode of execution. Therefore treachery was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Supreme Court Ruling: Downgrading to Homicide and Sentence Computation

The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal, holding that the appropriate conviction is Homicide (Article 249), not Murder. With treachery removed, the legal classification becomes Homicide. The Court applied the penalty regime as follows: Homicide carries reclusion temporal; absent modifying circumstances, the medium period of reclusion temporal would apply. Under the Indetermina

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 87636)

Procedural Posture

Appeal to the Supreme Court from the Decision dated April 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01266-MIN, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Butuan City, Judgment dated November 26, 2013 in Criminal Case No. 6048.
Notice of Appeal filed May 11, 2017. The appeal to the Supreme Court was taken under Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.
Case resolved by the Supreme Court in Decision reported at 855 Phil. 352, G.R. No. 233205, dated June 26, 2019 (Second Division, penned by Justice Caguioa; Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur).

Charge / Information

Accused: SPO2 Edgardo Menil y Bongkit.
Charge: Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
Allegations in the Information: On or about 1:30 o’clock in the morning of December 28, 1993, at the ground floor of Sing-Sing Garden and Restaurant, Villanueva Street, Butuan City, Philippines, accused with intent to kill, by means of force and violence and with treachery and evident premeditation, attacked, assaulted and shot victim Edwin B. Bagaslao with a handgun causing a gunshot wound to the head which caused his subsequent death.

Arraignment and Plea

Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty.

Facts as Found in Record (Incident and Immediate Events)

Incident date and time: December 28, 1993 at around 1:00–1:30 a.m.
Location: Sing-Sing Garden and Restaurant (also spelled Sing-Song Garden), Butuan City.
Parties at the scene: victim Edwin B. Bagaslao, his common-law wife Cynthia Rose Coloma, accused-appellant Menil, and other attendees including one identified as Dodoy (spelled in parts of the rollo as "Dodong") Plaza and witnesses such as Ricardo Oracion Torralba.
Sequence described by prosecution witnesses: Coloma and Bagaslao were leaving a Christmas party at Tip-Topp Disco when accused pushed Coloma and a heated argument ensued between accused and Bagaslao; Dodoy Plaza pacified them; while the victim and his companion were on the sidewalk, accused suddenly came from behind and shot the victim; victim fell on Coloma; friends transported him to the hospital by police car; victim died at around 3:00 p.m. the same day due to a gunshot wound with point of entry right zygomatic area and point of exit left parietal region (as per Medical Certificate signed by Dr. Renato Salas Muñez).
Other factual details: Torralba testified he was approximately one meter away and saw accused shoot the victim and saw accused run away after the shooting; Coloma reported the incident to the police and had the incident blottered.

Prosecution Evidence and Witnesses

Prosecution presented three witnesses: Cynthia Rose Coloma (victim’s common-law wife), Ricardo Oracion Torralba, and Dr. Renato Salas Muñez.
Coloma’s testimony: recounted the push, the heated argument, pacification by Dodoy Plaza, the subsequent approach from behind by accused and a soft gun report; victim then fell and was taken to hospital.
Torralba’s testimony: placed him approximately one meter away and testified he saw accused shoot the victim and that accused ran away afterwards.
Dr. Muñez’s testimony: signed the Medical Certificate describing the gunshot wound’s entry and exit points and described admission for “a gunshot wound point of entry right zygomatic area, point of exit left parietal region.”

Defense Version and Testimony of Accused

Accused Menil vehemently denied killing Bagaslao.
Accused’s account of the evening: on December 27, 1993, he met friends and later went to Sing-Sing Garden, drank beer with companions; at around 11:00 p.m. Bagaslao and companions became rowdy and accused admonished them; at 1:20 a.m. they went downstairs to leave; when on the last step of the stairs, Bagaslao allegedly grabbed accused’s revolver; a grapple ensued as accused sought to regain possession of the revolver; after grappling, a shot was fired and Bagaslao fell.
Accused admitted under oath that the firearm that was used to shoot the victim was his service firearm.
Accused denied intentionally killing the victim.

RTC Judgment (November 26, 2013)

RTC convicted accused Edgardo B. Menil of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.
Sentence imposed by RTC: Reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole.
Civil and other monetary awards ordered by RTC: indemnify heirs P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto; P50,000.00 as moral damag