PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

PONCIANO ESPINA y BALASANTOS alias

"JUN ESPINA AND JR"
G.R. No. 219614 | July 10, 2019 | Second Division | LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

DOCTRINE:
Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by the courts only through external
manifestations i.e. the means used by the malefactor; the conduct of the malefactor before, during,
or immediately after the killing of the victim; the circumstances under which the crime was
committed, the motive of the offender and the words he uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries
on the victim.

The evidence to prove treachery must be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself. The
evidence must show that the offender prepared to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the
execution of the crime or to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend
himself.

FACTS:
The prosecution alleged that appellant Ponciano Espina and Ernando Reyes, Jr., amongst
others, were having a drinking spree. Appellant suddenly left and returned with a .45-caliber gun.
After a while, appellant pulled out the gun and pointed it close to Ernando's chest, posing these
questions "Ano gusto? Patay buhay?" Then right off, he shot Ernando in the upper right chest.
Ernando was rushed to the hospital but later died.

Appellant denied the charge and even denied knowing Ernando, and that he was charged
with frustrated homicide in a different case and only learnt of the charged against him for the
present case four days later during the time he was detained for the frustrated homicide charge.

ISSUE:
1. Is intent to kill sufficiently established through the evidence presented by the
prosecution?
2. Was there sufficient evidence to establish treachery which attended the killing?
RULING:
1. Yes.

Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by the courts only through external
manifestations i.e. the means used by the malefactor; the conduct of the malefactor before, during,
or immediately after the killing of the victim; the circumstances under which the crime was
committed, the motive of the offender and the words he uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries
on the victim.

In this case, factual circumstances clearly showed appellant's intent to kill. He came back
and showed off his and he pointed it to Ernando posing two queries: "Ano gusto? Patay buhay?".
Right off, he shot the unarmed victim in the right chest. Appellant's vicious attack was unprovoked.
It has been settled that if the victim died because of' a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill
is conclusively presumed.

Clearly therefore, appellant's intent to kill Ernando was amply established on record.

2. Yes.

The evidence to prove treachery must be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself. The
evidence must show that the offender prepared to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the
execution of the crime or to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend
himself.

Here, Russel positively testified that appellant and Ernando had no prior conflict or quarrel
when appellant suddenly shot Ernando. The appellant instantly drew his gun out and pointed it to
Ernando's chest and not waiting for Ernando's response, appellant swiftly shot the unarmed victim
in the chest. Ernando was left without even a bit of a chance to defend himself or run away.
 Undoubtedly, appellant employed means which ensured the commission of the crime
without exposing himself to any risk which may come from Ernando's possible act of retaliation
or defense. The Court considers this treachery.