Criminal Law II | Article 248 of the RPC |Case Digest by: Codilla, John Rey

R.
People vs. Cañaveras (G.R. No. 193839, Nov. 27, 2013)
FACTS: About 8:30PM of Nov. 30, 1993, Cañaveras, with 3 unidentified persons,
was drinking liquor in Oriel’s house in Camarines Sur. Claro arrived and asked the
men if “Judas”, referring to a person named Gregorio Carable, was there. Oriel
answered that Judas was not there. After a short while, Claro came back and asked
again. This time, Cañaveras and his companions answered that they were, in fact,
Judas. Claro then left, but the 3 unidentified persons followed him outside. On the
road outside, these 3 repeatedly punched Claro. When Claro was about to escape,
Cañaveras went out of the house and struck Claro with a grande beer bottle on the
head. Claro collapsed. Certain Matea, who was nearby, aimed her flashlight on the
assailant’s face, enabling her to recognize the appellant, despite the brownout.
Matea shouted for help when she saw the bleeding Claro. Alvin Camu went to Oriel’s
house, where he thought the sound came from. Alvin also saw Cañaveras going out
through Oriel’s kitchen door. Alvin went on the road and saw Claro’s dead body. An
Information was filed before the RTC charging the appellant and the 3 unidentified
persons with the crime of murder qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, and
abuse of superior strength. The RTC found the appellant guilty of the crime of
murder and sentenced him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On his appeal to CA,
the appellant alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies and argued that there was
an error in appreciating treachery as qualifying circumstance. CA affirmed the RTC
ruling.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery attended the commission of the crime.
HELD: No. The SC stressed no doubt that the appellant killed Claro but it further
found that treachery was improperly appreciated. Treachery is appreciated as a
qualifying circumstance when the following elements are shown: a) the malefactor
employed means, method, or manner of execution affording the person attacked no
opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and b) the means, method, or manner of
execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.
Treachery should also be shown that the mode of attack has knowingly been
intended to accomplish the wicked intent. Thus, the second element is the subjective
aspect of treachery. It means that the accused must have made some preparation to
kill the deceased in a manner that would insure the execution of the crime or render
it impossible or hard for the person attacked to resort to self-defense or retaliation.
The mode of attack, therefore, must have been planned by the offender and must
not have sprung from an unexpected turn of events. Treachery is not present when
the killing is not premeditated, or where the sudden attack is not preconceived and
deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the
accused as a result of a provocative act of the victim, or when the killing is done at
the spur of the moment. In this case, there was no time for appellant and his
companions to plan and agree to deliberately adopt a particular means to kill Claro.
Even the choice of weapon, a beer bottle readily available and within grabbing range
at the table as appellant followed outside, shows that the intent to harm came about
spontaneously. Therefore, SC ruled that the crime committed was homicide, not
murder.