G.R. No. 134485 - People vs. Perez

The case involves the murder of Ildefonso Balite by Oscar Perez.
The incident occurred in a tenement housing unit shared by the Balite and Santos families in Plaridel, Bulacan.
The two families shared an electrical supply, which led to a dispute over the power connection.
On April 28, 1995, Ildefonso attempted to disconnect the shared power supply due to an electrical hazard, leading to a confrontation with Oscar.

Ildefonso, accompanied by friends, confronted Emerencia Santos about the electrical issue but was refused permission to disconnect the power.
A heated argument ensued between Ildefonso and Oscar, which was briefly interrupted by Artemio Santos.
After the argument, Ildefonso left the scene, unaware that Oscar was following him with a firearm.
Oscar called out to Ildefonso, who turned to face him, and was shot twice—first in the chest and then in the head—resulting in his death.

An autopsy conducted by Dr. Alberto Bondoc revealed two fatal gunshot wounds.
The first wound was to the head, and the second was to the chest, with evidence suggesting close-range firing.
Gunpowder tattooing indicated that the shots were fired from a distance of approximately four to six inches.
Ildefonso was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital.

Rowena Balite, Ildefonso's wife, reported the incident to the police the following day.
An Information for murder was filed against Oscar Perez, alleging treachery and evident premeditation.
Oscar entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment.

Oscar claimed that he was attacked by Ildefonso and his companions, asserting that he acted in self-defense.
He denied having a gun and stated that he was unaware of who fired the shot during the struggle.
The defense argued that the altercation negated the presence of treachery.

The trial court found Oscar guilty of murder, qualifying the crime with treachery.
The court imposed a sentence of reclusion perpetua and ordered Oscar to pay civil indemnity to the victim's heirs.

Oscar appealed, arguing that the evidence warranted a conviction for homicide rather than murder.
He contended that the prior altercation provided the victim with forewarning, negating the element of treachery.

The court affirmed the trial court's finding of treachery, emphasizing the sudden and unexpected nature of the attack.
The victim had no opportunity to defend himself, as he was unarmed and unaware of the impending danger.
The court clarified that treachery can exist even in frontal attacks if the victim is caught off guard.

The court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that evident premeditation was not proven.
The prosecution failed to establish the necessary elements for evident premeditation.
The use of an unlicensed firearm was not considered ...continue reading