Heat of anger

One of the circumstances that qualify the killing of a person to murder instead of mere homicide is treachery which must be proven as clearly and as cogently as the crime itself. This is the rule applied in this case of Mario.

Mario was still single but already had a daughter with his former live-in partner who left them already. In his desire to get out of his forlorn and lonely situation, Mario was able to meet Tess who just lived nearby with her parents. Eventually Mario was able to convince Tess to live-in with him and his daughter Linda.

But when Tess got pregnant, her parents got her back from Mario and took care of her during her pregnancy. While separated, Mario got suspicious that Tess was seeing another man who happened to be his friend Jerry.

Three months after giving birth, Tess went to the house of her sister Lea. While in her sister’s house, Mario’s daughter Linda went there and told Tess that a man was looking for her in their house. Tess told Linda that she would just follow later. Thereafter, Tess and her three month old son went back to Mario’s house.

When Mario saw Tess back, he asked her what she was doing in the house of his friend Jerry. Apparently, Mario did not know that Tess actually went to the house of her sister Lea. When Tess did not answer, Mario forced her to admit that she was having an affair with his friend Jerry. Unable to control herself anymore, Tess shouted at Mario, prompting the latter to slap her.

Tess then got a double bladed knife she saw on top of the TV set and was poised to stab Mario. But Mario was able to take the knife away from her, prompting Tess to slap him in retaliation. This enraged Mario who lost control of himself and stabbed Tess eleven times nine of which landed at her back.

When Mario regained his senses, he saw Tess sprawled on the floor bloodied all over and apparently dead already. So he fled to the cemetery and slept there. The next day at about 6 am, he surrendered to the Barangay Captain who brought him to the Police station.

Three days after the killing, Mario executed a sworn statement in which he admitted killing Tess after being properly apprised of his rights under the Constitution. So the following day he was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the killing of Tess without justifiable cause and with treachery and evident premeditation.

During the trial, Mario admitted having executed his sworn statement in the police station and the truth of the contents thereof. On the basis of this sworn statement and the testimonies of other witnesses who did not actually see the stabbing or how Mario attacked the victim or his mode to ensure the killing, the RTC still found him guilty of murder because he killed the victim with treachery. Was the RTC correct?

No. Mario is guilty of homicide only. 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. 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.

In this case, Mario and Tess were engaged in a quarrel, in a heated argument which culminated in Mario’s stabbing Tess in the heat of anger. As a rule there can be no treachery when an altercation ensued between the aggressor and the victim. While the victim sustained stab wounds at the back, the same does not constitute proof of treachery. Treachery must be proven as clearly and as cogently as the crime itself.

So Mario should be sentenced to imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months as maximum because of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. He should also pay the heirs of Tess, P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages and actual damages consisting of burial, funeral and travelling expenses totaling P239,720.00 (People vs. Aquino, G.R. 147220, June 9, 2004).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles or Labor Law and Criminla Law Vols. I and II now available at 403 Sunrise Condo, 226 Ortigas Ave. Greenhills S.J. Tel 7249445. Email address: [email protected]