G.R. No. 147220 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JESUS AQUINO Y DIMACALI.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Rep. Act No. 7659. Accordingly, he shall serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties under the law, and shall pay the costs. The accused shall be credited with the period of his preventive detention. By way of civil liabilities, the accused shall pay the following amounts to the victims heirs, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency: P80,000.00 for funeral services; P59,270.00 for burial expenses; P100,000.00 for the victims fathers travel expenses; and P50,000.00 for attorneys fees to Atty. Arnel Magcalas The Branch Clerk of this Court shall now issue the corresponding Commitment Order for the accuseds confinement at the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City. [16] The trial court appreciated in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Present Appeal The appellant now appeals the decision, contending that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder, absent proof of treachery attendant to the crime. The appellant avers that the stabbing incident was the offshoot of a quarrel. He asserts that the prosecution failed to prove that he killed the victim with treachery, and that while the victim sustained stab wounds at the back, the same does not constitute proof of such qualifying circumstance. The Ruling of the Court We agree with the appellant that he is guilty only of homicide. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established by the prosecution. To prove treachery, the evidence must show that the accused made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself. [17] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation. [18] Treachery must be proven as clearly and as cogently as the crime itself. [19] It is herein noted that the prosecution witnesses did not see the actual stabbing of the victim. As such, there is no way of determining how the attack was initiated, in the same way that no testimony would prove that the appellant contemplated upon the mode to insure the killing. [20] Absent any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced, treachery cannot be appreciated against the appellant. [21] What is clear after our review of the records is that the appellant and the victim were engaged in a quarrel, a heated argument which culminated in the appellants stabbing the victim in the heat of anger. As a rule, there can be no treachery when an altercation ensued between