Fatal failure

The killing of a person with treachery or evident premeditation is a crime of murder. This is illustrated in this case of Toto, who is charged with murder for unlawfully, willfully and feloniously stabbing and killing Paquito.

This case happened in a town in a Visayan island where Toto lived. It started one late afternoon when Paquito was invited by Badong to his house for a drinking spree. Then at about 7 p.m., Toto invited the two to his house where they consumed one gallon of tuba at the house extension (suy-ab) of Toto.

By midnight, Jun the son of Paquito decided to fetch his father at Toto’s suy-ab. There he saw his father being held in his arms by Badong while Toto was stabbing him. At that time, they were the only persons at the suy-ab.

So Jun clearly saw the attack on his father by the assailant Toto, since he was only two arm’s length from them. Though Paquito had a knife in a scabbard tucked in his waist, he had no chance to defend himself.

Out of fear, Jun ran toward the house of their neighbor, barangay tanod Doro, and sought help. Doro refused, thus he asked Doro to accompany him to his aunt in the adjoining barangay at about two o’clock in the morning.

The following day, Jun’s aunt sought the assistance of the barangay council to retrieve the lifeless body of Paquito from inside the house of Toto. They saw the body of Paquito in a seating position on the floor. Toto and his family and Badong were nowhere to be found.

They brought the cadaver to another town where Dr. Harry conducted the post migration examination of Paquito. The autopsy report showed that Paquito suffered 33 stab wounds, 10 of which were fatal, located at the left side where the heart was; three stab wounds on the right side punctured the lungs. The assailant and the victim were near each other, but Dr. Harry was not sure if there was more than one assailant.

At the trial, Jun testified on what he saw, which was corroborated by the victim’s brother, Ernie. Dr. Harry also testified and confirmed the autopsy report.

For the defense, Toto testified that Paquito and Badong came to his house that evening for a drinking spree, bringing with them a gallon of tuba to drink. After two hours, Paquito and Badong decided to go home as there was no more tuba.

The following morning, Belen was shocked when she saw the lifeless body of Paquito with several stab wounds in the suy-ab. Out of fear, Toto and his family decided to transfer to another barangay but did not do so when Toto was informed that he was a suspect in Paquito’s killing and Paquito’s brother Ernie was already looking for him for revenge.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Toto guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and pay the heirs of Paquito P50,000 for his death and P30,000 for moral damages.

This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which however increased the indemnity and moral damages to P100,000. Were the RTC and CA correct in finding Toto guilty of murder?

They are partly correct. Toto really killed Paquito but is only guilty of homicide, said the Supreme Court (SC).

According to the SC, to sustain a conviction of murder, the prosecution must establish the following elements; (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attend by treachery, evident premeditation or any of the other qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and (4) the killer is not related to the victim by affinity or consanguinity (patricide or infanticide).

In this case, there is insufficient evidence 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 specially to insure the execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might take.

The killing here was not also premeditated. Evident premeditation exist when there is (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused held on to his determination and (3) lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and the actual execution, enough to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

In this case, the eye witness account of the incident simply failed to establish when the assailants decided to commit the offense and the lapse of sufficient time from such decision until the commission of the crime. Without any of the circumstances to qualify the killing of Paquito as murder, Toto may be convicted of homicide. So the appeal of Toto is partly granted and he shall be sentenced only to eight years and one day minimum up to 14 years, eight months and one day maximum, plus civil indemnity moral damages, exemplary damages and temperate damages of P50,000 each.

(People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Danilo Toro Y Diano @ “OTO” Appellant. G.R No. 245922, Jan. 25, 2021.)