TREACHERY AS QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MURDER

People of the Philippines vs. Ardin Cuesta Cadampog

G.R. No. 218244, June 13, 2018

Martires, J.
<space>
DOCTRINE:

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the

aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to
defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and
without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.

<space>

FACTS:

This case is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18,
Cebu City, in finding the accused-appellant Ardin Cuesta Cadampog guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crim of murder.

Based on the information filed by the Prosecutor’s Office, Ardin was charged with
the crim of murder based on the accusations that on or about October 31, 2008, said
accused, armed with a handgun, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery, did then and
there shoot Florencio Leonor Napoles, hitting the latter on his trunk, which caused his
death.

The RTC ruled in favour of the prosecution. The trial court gave credence to Alicia's
positive identification of Ardin as the person responsible for the death of Florencio. It
found worthy of belief Alicia's testimony that she saw Ardin running away from the crime
scene with a gun; and that she was familiar with Ardin's build and height. Furthermore, it
emphasized that prosecution witnesses Mark and Margie corroborated Alicia's description
of the assailant's outfit on the night Florencio died. Unconvinced, Ardin filed an appeal
before the CA. The appellate court affirmed with modification the RTC ruling. It held that
Alicia's positive and categorical testimony sufficiently established her identification of
Ardin as the one who shot Florencio. The CA also upheld the RTC's appreciation of the
qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. It observed that the killing was carried
out in a manner that rendered the victim defenseless and unable to retaliate.

<space>
ISSUE:

Whether or not Ardin is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

<space>

RULING:

YES. After a careful evaluation of the records, the Court is convinced that Alicia
positively identified Ardin as the perpetrator. Additionally, two other disinterested witnesses,
Mark and Margie, corroborated Alicia's description of the assailant's attire. Alicia recounted
that Ardin was wearing a dark jacket, short pants, and a bullcap. This matched Mark and
Margie's description of Ardin's attire when they saw the latter on the night Florencio was
killed.

Ardin failed to show that the prosecution witnesses were prompted by any ill motive to
falsely testify or accuse him of so grave a crime as murder. Besides, as widow of the victim, it
is consistent with reason that Alicia would desire punishment for the real perpetrator of the
crime. It is unnatural for a victim's relative interested in vindicating the crime to accuse
somebody other than the real culprit. Human nature tells us that the aggrieved relatives
would want the real killer punished for their loss and would not accept a mere scapegoat to
take the rap for the real malefactor. Concomitantly, the Court adheres to the established rule
that, in the absence of any evidence showing reason or motive for witnesses to perjure, their
testimony and identification of the assailant should be given full faith and credit.

Both the RTC and the CA found that the killing was attended by treachery. There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the
execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the
aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without the
slightest provocation on the part of the victim.

There is no doubt that the act of Ardin in shooting the victim through the bamboo slats
qualifies the crime with alevosia. Florencio was having supper when he was shot. He had no
suspicion that he was to be assaulted; and the sudden, swift attack gave him no opportunity
to defend himself. Therefore, this Court agrees with the tribunals a quo that the crime
committed was murder.
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AND INSANITY AS A QUALIFYING AND EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE

People of the Philippines vs. Roland Mirana Y Alcaraz

G.R. No. 219113, April 25, 2018

Martires, J.

<space>

DOCTRINE:

Abuse of superior strength can only be considered when it is shown that the
assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to
use this advantage. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use
excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked. The appreciation of the aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size,
and strength of the parties.

<space>

FACTS:
This is an automatic review of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of finding accused-appellant Roland
Mirana y Alcaraz, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and thereby
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
According to the prosecution, the victim, Dominga Agnas Vda. De Globo was a 73-
year old widow who was also known as “May Inggay” by her relatives and neighbors. She
lived on her own but prior to her death, she frequently slept at the house of Alberto Mirafia
(Alberto), her first cousin, because accused-appellant had been harassing her, such as by
throwing stones at her. The victim believed that accused-appellant was threatening her
because she once reprimanded him after she caught him stealing fruits from her property.
On June 16, 2008, when Alberto returned home from attending a fiesta, he found the
victim in his house, trembling while praying. She told Alberto that she was scared because
accused-appellant had chased her with a bolo. The victim did not report him to the
barangay as he was her relative. She then left Alberto’s house and went to her brother’s
house, who upon relating the incident to her brother, was advised not to return to her
house and report the said incident to the barangay. However, she did not listen. She
returned home to await the call of her son, who was working abroad.
Between 6 o'clock to 6:30 in the morning of 17 June 2008, Armando Orce
(Armando), the victim's neighbor, was at the coconut plantation near his house when he
heard a woman cry out followed by a loud cry of a man. he saw a woman lying on her side
on the ground in front of the door to his house. Armando recognized the woman as the May
Inggay. He also saw accused-appellant's father crying at the back of their house facing the
accused-appellant.
PO3 Bobby Corono (PO3 Corona), together with two (2) other police officers,
responded to a call about the incident. Upon arrival at the place of the incident, PO3 Corono
saw the body of the victim lying on the ground. Accused-appellant approached PO3 Corono
and admitted he was responsible for the victim's death. He then pointed to a bolo and said
that he used it to hack the victim and washed it afterward. PO3 Corono thereafter arrested
accused-appellant and brought him to the police station along with the bolo as evidence.
Accused-appellant was initially charged with homicide but was later on withdrawn.
Afterwhich, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued a resolution which ordered that a
new information for murder be filed against accused-appellant.
The defense on the other hand, Imelda Mirana (Imelda) was presented as witness.
She testified that she noticed her son exhibiting odd behaviour after the latter’s nose was
bitten by a cousin. She said that herein accused-appellant would smile without anyone in
front of him; he would call a chicken late at night; and would keep on saying to himself that
the victim was a witch. During trial, herein accused-appellant claimed not to know or recall
the events surrounding the incident, the identity of the victim and even his confinement
and treatment at the mental hospital.
The RTC ruled that accused-appellant was not able to prove his defense of insanity.
It thereafter appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength to
qualify the crime to murder, in consideration of the fact that the victim was a 73-year-old
unarmed woman as against a male assailant in his early twenties. The CA affirmed the
conviction of the accused-appellant, with modification as to the award of damages.
<space>

ISSUE:
Whether or not insanity could be appreciated in accused-appellant’s favour in order
to exculpate him from criminal liability.
<space>

HELD:
NO but herein accused is only liable for homicide. The defense failed to prove accused-
appellant’s insanity at the time of the commission of the crime. An accused invoking the
exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing
evidence because every person is presumed sane.
Since the state of a person's mind can only be judged by his behaviour, establishing the
insanity of an accused requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is
intimately acquainted with the accused, or who has rational basis to conclude that the
accused was insane based on the witness' own perception of the accused, or who is qualified
as an expert, such as a psychiatrist. Taken against the standard of clear and convincing
evidence, the proof proffered by the defense fails to pass muster.
Unusual behaviors such as smiling to oneself and calling a chicken late at night are not
proof of a complete absence of intelligence, because not every aberration of the mind or
mental deficiency constitutes insanity.
As for the qualifying circumstance, the abuse of superior strength cannot be
appreciated. The Court finds that the presence of this circumstance in the commission of the
crime was not sufficiently proven. The Court finds that taking into account the gender and the
age of the victim is insufficient to conclude the presence of abuse of superior strength. For
abuse of superior strength to be properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, it must be
shown that the advantage of superior strength was purposely and consciously sought by the
assailant.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with modification, finding
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.