PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANGEL RIOS, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 132632
June 19,2000

FACTS:
Appellant Angel Rios was charged with the crime of murder for the fatal stabing of
deceased Ambrocio Benedicto.Ambrocio and Anacita Benedicto were owners of a sari-
sari store in their subdivision.According to Anacita, Rios, their neighbor, was hurling
stones at their house the night of the incident. A few minutes later Rios bought
cigarettes from their store and Ambrocio confronted him about the incident and an
altercation between them ensued. While the two were engaged in a verbal scuffle,
barangay tanods intervened and requested both parties to part ways. A few minutes
later, Rios suddenly approached Ambrocio and stabbed his right stomach. Anacita was
only a meter away from the antagonist; she was facing her husband’s back while Rios
was standing in front of Ambrocio. As Anacita started shouting, Rios fled. The tanods
saw Anacita weeping while Ambrocio was dead.
The Regional Trial Court found Rios guilty. Furthermore, it found that the killing of
Ambrocio was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery but that abuse of
superior strength is “comprehended” by said circumstance. It ruled out the presence of
evident premeditation. However, it considered dwelling as aggravating to the effect that
even if the accused did not enter the victim’s house, such as when he shot the victim
from under the house or he fired the shot the fell the victim who was inside his house,
said circumstance is aggravating.

ISSUE:
Whether treachery can aggravate the crime committed.

RULING:
In this case, the prosecution failed to discharge its duty under the law as regards the
qualifying circumstance of 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 directly and specifically to insure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party may make. To constitute treachery,
these two conditions must be present: (1) employment of means of execution that gives
the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of
execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

Treachery may not be appreciated where, as in this case, the attack against the victim
cannot be categorized as unexpected and unforeseen so as to deprive him the
opportunity to defend himself. By the facts of the case, where the incident of the victim
berating the accused for throwing stones at his residence preceded the fatal assault, a
possible retaliation by the accused was not remote. As this Court has repeatedly held,
there is no treachery when the victim is placed on guard, as when a heated argument
preceded the attack, especially when the victim was standing face to face with his
assailant. In that instance, the initial assault could not have been unforeseen.

DOCTRINE:
The elements must concur in order to establish treachery: a.) that at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and b.) that the offender
consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed
 JOEL LUCES, pititioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
G.R. No. 149492
January 20,2003

FACTS:
On the evening of November 11 1997, the victim, Clemente Dela Gracia, along
withDante Reginio and others were on their way to the house of Didoy Elican. The
accused, JoelLuces, collared the victim saying "Get it. If you will note get it, I will kill
you" then, the accusedstabbed the victim with a balisong. The victim was rushed to the
hospital while the accused fledthe scene. The victim subsequently died. The accused
stated that he was waiting for his wife and they subsequently went home. The nextday
the accused was informed that he was the suspect for killing the victim, for fear that he
maybe arrested, he went into hiding. He was convinced by his mother to surrender to
the police,which he did. At the police station, he surrendered himself but denied
authorship of a crimethrough a sworn statement saying that it was someone else who
had committed the murderbecuase it was quite dark and he was far from the incident.
The RTC found the accused guilty of homicide and was sentenced to 8
years and 1 dayminimum to 17 days and 4 months maximum. The CA modified the
decision, taking into accountthe voluntary surrender of the accused, reducing the
sentence to 8 years and 1 day minimum to13 years and nine months maximum.

ISSUE/S:
Can treachery be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

RULING:
Regarding the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the trial court and the Court of
Appeals correctly disregarded the attendance thereof in the instant case. Treachery
(alevosia) is present when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods,
and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were
deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person. In
the case at bar, the victim was not deprived of a real chance to defend himself. Note
that the attack in the instant case was frontal and that the victim sustained a defensive
wound on his left palm. Moreover, the presence of the victim’s companions, Dante
Reginio and Nelson Magbanua, reveals that the victim was not completely helpless.
Neither was there sufficient evidence to establish that appellant consciously adopted the
mode of attack. The meeting between the victim and the petitioner was a casual
encounter. Absent evidence showing that petitioner deliberately planned or adopted the
mode of execution of the offense, treachery cannot be appreciated.

DOCTRINE:
The elements must concur in order to establish treachery: a.) that at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and b.) that the offender
consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff -Appellee
vs.
RAMIL MORES, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 189846
June 26, 2013

FACTS:
At about 6 PM, Daryl Famisaran was chatting with his friends. While they were
conversing, Ramil Mores passed by, stopped before them and with a grenade in his
hand, talked to them and said: “Gusto niyo pasabugin ko ito?” After Mores had left, they
immediately dispersed.
At about 9 PM of the same day, Daryl was at Roxas Gymnasium where a ball was being
held. There were many people in the gym. While the dancing was on-going, Daryl saw
Mores at a distance of about 5 armslength on the same row from them. Mores was the
with his co-accused Delio Famor and they were whispering with each other. In between
Daryl and the two accused were persons sitting on the rows of chairs and spectators.
He saw Mores pull out a round object, the grenade and threw it on the floor as if rolling
a ball.A commotion ensued and Daryl heard outcries. The explosion wounded several
persons and killed a person.The narrative of Daryl Famisaran was corroborated by
Esteban Galaran, Jr. According to Esteban, he knew Mores and Famor because they
were former members of Civilian Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU).

ISSUE:
Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery is present in the commission of the
crime for aggravating circumstance to be appreciated.

RULING:
Yes and he is guilty of murder with multiple attempted murder.
The elements must concur in order to establish treachery: a.) that at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and b.) that the offender
consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed. The essence of treachery
is that the attack comes without warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected
manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape.Therefore, the manner by which Mores deliberately rolled the grenade on the
ground towards the dance floorpacked with unsuspecting people, leaving one dead and
many wounded in the aftermath of the sudden blast was accompanied by treachery.
Mores’ unexpected action which was immediately followed by the grenade’s lethal
explosion left the victims with utterly no chance to escape the blast area nor to find
protective cover. Though Mores stood a short distance away, he knowingly positioned
himself safely from the reach of the grenade’s destructive force.

DOCTRINE:
The elements must concur in order to establish treachery: a.) that at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and b.) that the offender
consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff -Appellee,
vs.
NESTOR ROXAS y CASTRO,1 Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 218396
February 10, 2016

FACTS:
Nestor Roxas y Castro is convicted of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the facts that on or about October 25, 1995 at
around 8:30 o'clock in the evening at Brgy. Dela Paz Proper, Batangas City, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while
armed with a knife, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstance of treachery or
evident premeditation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and stab with said deadly weapon, suddenly and without warning, one Severino
Manalo y Atienza, while the latter was unarmed and completely defenseless, thereby
hitting him at the different parts of his body, which directly caused the victim's death

ISSUE/S:
Whether the court a quo gravely err in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.

RULING:
Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods or forms in its execution which tend directly and especially
to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the
offended party might make.

At this point, it bears to emphasize that the stabbing was not preceded by any argument
between the victim and the accused-appellant. So, when the accused-appellant
surreptitiously approached the victim from behind, the latter had no inkling nor reason to
believe that his life was in danger.

On account of the fact that Severino was just casually conversing with Vicente at that
time, his defenses were down. Naturally, Severino was too stunned by the suddenness
of the first stab blow at hi.s back. As a result, the victim could no longer recover from the
initial attack and the other two stab blows inflicted made it more difficult for Severino to
defend himself or retaliate. This is precisely the essence of treachery wherein the attack
must be deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner,
affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.
Further, the strategy employed by the accused-appellant in carrying out the attack
guaranteed that he will not be exposed to any risk which may arise from the defense the
victim might make.

All told, the Court finds that the trial court and appellate courts committed no reversible
error in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the present case.

DOCTRINE:
For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur, namely, (a) the employment of
means of execution that gives the personnattacked no opportunity to defend himself or
retaliate, and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
WILSON ROMAN, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 198110
July 31, 2013

FACTS:
Wilson Roman was charged with Murder on the facts that that in the morning of June
22, 1995, she was at a wedding party in the house of a certain Andang Toniza in
Barangay Coguit, Balatan, Camarines Sur, when she witnessed the accused-appellant
hacks Vicente Indaya (victim) unrelentingly with a bolo. The victim was hit on his head,
nape, right shoulder, base of the nape and right elbow before he fell on the ground and
instantly died.4

Borlagdatan, who was also at the wedding party, testified that he was at the kitchen,
getting rice to be served for the guests, when he heard someone shouting that
somebody was hacked. When he went out to check what the commotion is about, he
saw the victim lying on his stomach, drenched in his own blood, while the accused-
appellant was standing in front of him, holding a bolo. Borlagdatan tried to seize
possession of the bolo from the accused-appellant but the latter made a downward
thrust, hitting his right thumb. He left the place and proceeded to the nearby health
center to have his wound treated.

ISSUE:
Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery exists

RULING:
Yes, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was clearly established by the
eyewitnesses’ consistent accounts that the accused-appellant, without provocation,
suddenly attacked the victim with his bolo from behind, the latter being defenseless and
totally unaware of the impending danger to his person. Crime was qualified by
treachery.

The accused-appellant contends that even supposing he should be found guilty of killing
the victim, he should be convicted only of homicide, not murder, for failure of the
prosecution to establish treachery.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make. It takes place when the following elements concur: (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 of attack employed.

DOCTRINE:
Treachery takes place when the following elements concur: (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 of attack employed.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
FLORENCIO AGACER, EDDIE AGACER, ELYNOR AGACER, FRANKLIN AGACER
and ERIC* AGACER, Appellants.
G.R. No. 177751
December 14, 2011

FACTS:
Florencio Agacer Franklin Agacer ,Elynor Agacer ,Eric Agacer and Eddie Agacer were
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for the killing of Cesario
Agacer on the facts that on or about April 2, 1998, in the municipality of Sta. Ana,
Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction [of] this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, armed with a long firearm, a bow and arrow, a bolo and stones, with
intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, conspiring together and
helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault,
attack, stone and shoot one Cesario Agacer, inflicting upon the latter [bruises] and
multiple gunshot wounds in his body which caused his death and that the killing was
aggravated by the use of an unlicensed firearm.

ISSUE:
Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery exists

RULING:
Yes treachery was sufficiently alleged in the Information when it reads that the above-
name[d] accused, armed with a long firearm, a bow and arrow, a bolo and stones, with
intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, conspiring together and
helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault,
attack, stone and shoot one Cesario Agacer, inflicting upon the latter [bruises] and
multiple gunshot wounds in his body which caused his death. When treachery is present
and alleged in the Information, it qualifies the killing and raises it to the category of
murder.

DOCTRINE:
Treachery takes place when the following elements concur: (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 of attack employed.