Treachery as a Qualifying Circumstance: Establishing Intent in Murder Cases

G.R. No. 132069, May 31, 2000

Imagine walking down the street, completely unaware of the danger lurking around the corner. Suddenly, you’re attacked without warning, leaving you no chance to defend yourself. This scenario illustrates the essence of treachery, a qualifying circumstance that elevates a killing to murder under Philippine criminal law. The case of People of the Philippines vs. Jose T. Obosa delves into the complexities of proving treachery and its impact on determining criminal liability.

This case examines the conviction of Jose Obosa for the murder of Secretary Jaime Ferrer and his driver, Jesus Calderon. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Obosa guilty of two counts of murder qualified by treachery. This ruling highlights the importance of understanding how treachery is defined and proven in Philippine courts, and what factors influence its determination.

Defining Treachery: The Element of Surprise and Defenselessness

Under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, treachery (alevosía) is defined as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

To establish treachery, two elements must be present:

• The employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.
• The means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.

For example, if a person is stabbed from behind without any prior warning, and the attack is sudden and unexpected, treachery can be established. The victim had no chance to defend himself, and the attacker deliberately chose a method that ensured the success of the crime without risk to himself.

Case Facts: The Ferrer Assassination

On August 2, 1987, Secretary Jaime Ferrer and his driver, Jesus Calderon, were ambushed and killed in Parañaque, Metro Manila. Two Informations for murder were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati against Jose Obosa and several others. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified to seeing Obosa at the scene of the crime before and after the shooting. Ricardo Palquera, a fellow inmate, also testified that Obosa confessed to the killing. Obosa’s defense rested on alibi, claiming he was inside the National Bilibid Prison at the time of the incident.

The trial court convicted Obosa of two counts of homicide, but the Court of Appeals elevated the conviction to murder, finding that treachery was present. Since the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment), the Court of Appeals referred the case to the Supreme Court for final judgment.

Supreme Court Decision: Affirming Murder with Treachery

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Obosa guilty of two counts of murder. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Witness Credibility: The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, noting that minor inconsistencies in their testimonies did not detract from the material fact that they all recognized Obosa at the scene of the crime.
• Impossibility of Alibi: The Court rejected Obosa’s alibi, pointing to evidence that he enjoyed special privileges as a prison inmate, allowing him to leave the prison premises.
• Treachery Established: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that treachery was present, as the ambush was carried out while the Secretary’s car was slowing down, ensuring the success of the attack and eliminating any risk to the assailants.

The Supreme Court quoted the Court of Appeals’ observation:

“It is not disputed that Secretary Ferrer and his driver Jesus Calderon were waylaid while they were in the Secretary’s car passing through Victor Medina street (RTC Decision, p. 737, Vol II Records). The ambush was carried out precisely while the Secretary’s car was slowing down as they were approaching the corner of Victor Medina street and Quirino Avenue ensuring the accomplishment of the attack and at the same time eliminating any risk from possible defenses that the victim may put up.”

The Supreme Court also noted that the gunmen dispersed immediately after the shooting, indicating a coordinated effort to ensure the death of their victims.

Practical Implications: What This Means for Future Cases

The Obosa case reinforces the importance of establishing the elements of treachery beyond reasonable doubt. It also highlights the significance of witness credibility and the impact of special privileges afforded to accused persons, which can undermine their alibi defenses. This ruling serves as a reminder that treachery significantly increases the severity of the crime and the corresponding penalty.

Key Lessons

• Treachery Requires Surprise: The attack must be sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim with no chance to defend themselves.
• Intent Matters: The means of execution must be deliberately chosen to ensure the success of the crime.
• Witness Credibility is Key: Courts will carefully assess the credibility of witnesses, and minor inconsistencies in their testimonies may not be fatal to the prosecution’s case.
• Alibi Must Be Ironclad: An alibi defense must be supported by credible evidence and must demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused being at the scene of the crime.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between homicide and murder?

Homicide is the unlawful killing of another person. Murder is homicide qualified by certain circumstances, such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. The presence of a qualifying circumstance elevates the crime from homicide to murder, resulting in a higher penalty.

What is the penalty for murder in the Philippines?

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. However, with the suspension of the death penalty in the Philippines, the penalty is generally reclusion perpetua.

How does the court determine if treachery is present?

The court examines the circumstances surrounding the killing to determine if the attack was sudden and unexpected, and if the means of execution were deliberately chosen to ensure the success of the crime without risk to the offender.

Can a prison inmate be held liable for a crime committed outside prison?

Yes, if it can be proven that the inmate was able to leave the prison premises, either through escape or special privileges, and participated in the commission of the crime.

What role does witness testimony play in a murder case?

Witness testimony is crucial in establishing the facts of the case, identifying the perpetrators, and proving the elements of the crime, including treachery. The court will carefully assess the credibility of the witnesses and weigh their testimonies in light of the other evidence presented.

What happens if there are inconsistencies in witness testimonies?

Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies may not be fatal to the prosecution’s case, especially if the witnesses agree on the material facts. The court will consider the totality of the evidence and assess whether the inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the witnesses.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and prosecution in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.