Case People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No.

139542, 21 June 2001

Facts In the afternoon both the families of the private complainant Noel Andres and
that of the accused-appellant Inocencio Gonzalez were on their way to the
exit of the Loyola Memorial Park At the intersection near the Garden of
Remembrance, while the accused-appellant Gonzalez was turning left
towards the exit and the complainant Noel Andres was headed straight along
the road to the exit their two vehicles almost collided. Noel Andres was able to
timely step on the brakes. The appellant continued driving along his way while
Noel Andres drove behind the appellant's vehicle for some time and cut him
off when he found the opportunity to do so. This caused the altercations
between them.
Subsequently, one of the passengers claimed that they were shot. He turned
to his wife Feliber Andres and saw her bloodied and unconscious. He turned
around and saw his son Kenneth and nephew Kevin were also wounded. He
then took the wounded members of his family to the exit where there was an
ambulance standing by. The three were then taken to the Sta. Monica
Hospital and were later transferred to the Quezon City Medical Center. Trial
court appreciated treachery which qualified the crime into murder.

Issue Whether the trial court erred in appreciating treachery.

Ruling Yes. The Court held that there was no treachery in this case.
The Court had consistently held that chance encounters, impulse killing or
crimes committed at the spur of the moment or those that were preceded by
heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of
opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of
attack. Thus, the sudden attack made by the accused due to his infuriation by
reason of the victim's provocation was held to be without treachery. Sudden
attacks made by the accused preceded by curses and insults by the victim or
acts taunting the accused to retaliate or the rebellious or aggressive behavior
of the victim were held to be without treachery as the victim was suciently
forewarned of reprisal. For the rules on treachery to apply, the sudden attack
must have been preconceived by the accused, unexpected by the victim and
without provocation on the part of the latter. Hence the crime committed is
HOMICIDE

Doctrine SUDDENNESS OF ATTACK DOES NOT BY ITSELF RENDERS THE

ATTACK TREACHEROUS; FOR TREACHERY TO BE APPRECIATED, THE
SUDDEN ATTACK MUST HAVE BEEN PRECONCEIVED BY THE
ACCUSED, UNEXPECTED BY THE VICTIM AND WITHOUT
PROVOCATION ON PART OF THE LATTER.