The Supreme Court held that Cristobal Gallarde was guilty of murder due to the presence of treachery in the shooting of Melchor Decosto, Jr. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that the sudden and unexpected nature of the attack—from behind and at close range—prevented the victim from defending himself, thus constituting treachery. This ruling underscores how critical the circumstances of an attack are in determining criminal liability and the importance of proving intent and lack of opportunity for self-defense in cases of murder.

Sudden Death on New Year’s Eve: Was It Murder or Accidental Shooting?

The case revolves around the tragic death of Melchor Decosto, Jr., who was shot just before midnight on New Year’s Eve. Cristobal Gallarde was charged with murder, and the central question was whether the shooting was intentional and committed with treachery, or if it was an accident as the accused claimed. The prosecution argued that Gallarde intentionally shot Decosto from behind, while the defense contended that the gun went off accidentally during a struggle. The differing accounts and the presence or absence of treachery became the focal points of the trial and subsequent appeal.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Cristobal Gallarde of murder, a decision primarily based on the credibility of the witnesses presented by both sides. The court gave more weight to the testimony of the prosecution’s witness, Edilfredo Decosto, who witnessed the shooting. Edilfredo testified that Gallarde approached Melchor from behind and shot him at close range without any provocation. This testimony was crucial in establishing the element of treachery, which elevated the crime from homicide to murder. The court found Gallarde’s version of events—an accidental shooting during a struggle—unconvincing and inconsistent.

Accused-appellant Gallarde appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the death was purely accidental, and that the testimony of the prosecution witness was flawed and biased. He also contested the finding of treachery. However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by these arguments. The Court reiterated its policy of generally not interfering with the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, unless there is a clear indication that significant facts were overlooked or misconstrued.

One of the key points of contention was the location of the gunshot wound. According to the post-mortem examination, the bullet entered the back of Melchor’s head. This evidence contradicted Gallarde’s claim that the gun went off during a face-to-face struggle. The Supreme Court pointed out that, based on Gallarde’s version, the front of their bodies would have been facing each other, making it unlikely for the shot to hit the back of Melchor’s head.

As the Solicitor General observed, “Proceeding from appellant’s version of the incident, appellant and Melchor must have been facing each other while struggling for control of the gun. In the ordinary course of things, the frontal portions of their bodies must have been the ones exposed to the barrel of the gun during the struggle. It is, therefore, inconceivable how the muzzle of the gun found its direction at the left dorsal part of the head of Melchor.”

The Supreme Court also noted several inconsistencies in Gallarde’s testimony, further undermining his credibility. For instance, he initially claimed that the victim’s younger brother, Toto, pointed the gun at him, but later asserted that Toto was actually Melchor Decosto, Jr. These inconsistencies raised serious doubts about the veracity of his account. In contrast, the prosecution’s witness, Edilfredo Decosto, provided a clear and consistent account of the shooting. He testified that Gallarde approached Melchor from behind and shot him pointblank at the back of the neck. The Court found no reason to doubt Edilfredo’s testimony, especially since he knew Gallarde since childhood and was only a meter away when the shooting occurred.

Gallarde also argued that Edilfredo Decosto’s testimony was biased because they were first cousins. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing established jurisprudence that mere relationship to a party does not automatically impair a witness’s credibility.

As the Court has consistently held, “mere relationship of a witness to a party, without more, cannot impair the witness’ credibility.”

In fact, the Court noted that a witness’s relationship to the victim could even make their testimony more credible, as it would be unnatural for a relative to falsely accuse someone of the crime.

The most critical aspect of the case was the presence of treachery (alevosia), which qualifies the killing as murder. The Supreme Court found that the manner of the attack demonstrated treachery. The elements of treachery are (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, methods, or form of attack employed. In this case, the evidence showed that Gallarde suddenly approached Melchor from behind and shot him without warning. Melchor was about to turn and sit down when he was shot, indicating that he was not aware of the impending danger and had no opportunity to defend himself. The use of a firearm and the location of the wound at the back of the neck further demonstrated a deliberate intent to kill.

In Philippine law, treachery is defined as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack that deprives the victim of any real chance to defend himself. This element is crucial in distinguishing murder from homicide, as it reflects a higher degree of malice and criminal intent on the part of the offender. The Revised Penal Code provides that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, reflecting the gravity of the offense when committed with treachery or other qualifying circumstances.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision finding Gallarde guilty of murder. However, the Court modified the decision with regard to the civil liabilities. In addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 already awarded by the trial court, the Supreme Court ordered Gallarde to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. This award of moral damages is consistent with current jurisprudence, which recognizes the victim’s family’s emotional suffering and mental anguish caused by the crime. The imposition of civil indemnity and moral damages serves to provide some measure of compensation to the victim’s heirs and to acknowledge the gravity of the harm caused by the offender.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the shooting of Melchor Decosto, Jr. by Cristobal Gallarde constituted murder, specifically whether the killing was committed with treachery. The court had to determine if the attack was sudden and unexpected, preventing the victim from defending himself.
What was Gallarde’s defense?	Gallarde claimed that the shooting was accidental, occurring during a struggle for the gun with the victim. He argued that there was no intent to kill and that the circumstances did not warrant a murder conviction.
Why did the court reject Gallarde’s claim of accidental shooting?	The court rejected Gallarde’s claim due to inconsistencies in his testimony and the physical evidence, particularly the location of the gunshot wound at the back of the victim’s head. This contradicted his version of a face-to-face struggle.
What is the legal definition of treachery?	Treachery (alevosia) is the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that ensure its execution without risk to the offender from the defense the offended party might make. It involves a sudden and unexpected attack depriving the victim of the opportunity to defend themselves.
How did the court determine that treachery was present in this case?	The court determined that treachery was present because the attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victim no chance to defend himself. The prosecution’s witness testified that Gallarde approached the victim unexpectedly and shot him at close range.
What was the significance of the witness Edilfredo Decosto’s testimony?	Edilfredo Decosto’s testimony was crucial because he was an eyewitness to the shooting. He provided a clear and consistent account of how Gallarde approached the victim from behind and shot him, which supported the prosecution’s claim of treachery.
Did the fact that Edilfredo Decosto was related to the victim affect his credibility as a witness?	No, the court held that the mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not automatically impair their credibility. In fact, the court noted that a relative’s testimony might be more credible due to their interest in seeking justice for the victim.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision finding Gallarde guilty of murder. The Court modified the decision to include an award of moral damages of P50,000.00 in addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00.
What are moral damages?	Moral damages are awarded to compensate the victim’s family for the emotional suffering, mental anguish, and psychological pain caused by the crime. It is a form of compensation for the non-economic harm suffered by the victim’s heirs.

This case illustrates the importance of proving intent and the specific circumstances of an attack in determining criminal liability. The presence of treachery significantly elevates the severity of the crime, resulting in a conviction for murder and a corresponding increase in penalties and civil liabilities. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that those who commit heinous crimes with deliberate malice will be held accountable under the law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Gallarde, G.R. No. 137671, April 18, 2002