In People v. Ohayas, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ambrosio Ohayas for murder, emphasizing the importance of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The Court underscored that a sudden and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim, without any provocation, constitutes treachery, thus elevating the crime from homicide to murder. This decision reinforces the principle that those who employ means ensuring the execution of a crime against a person without risk to themselves will be held accountable for the greater offense of murder.

When a Balut Vendor’s Shotgun Silenced a Boy’s Laughter: Defining Treachery in Criminal Intent

The case revolves around the tragic death of Armando Kyamko, Jr., a 12-year-old boy who was shot by Ambrosio Ohayas while conversing with friends. The incident occurred on the evening of May 31, 1996, in Sitio Bonbon, Pinamungajan, Cebu. Ohayas, along with companions carrying torches, approached Armando Jr. and his friends. Without warning, Ohayas fired a shotgun, hitting the young boy in the abdomen, leading to his death. The central legal question is whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, thereby justifying the conviction for murder.

The prosecution presented testimonies from Sany Candelasa and Lou Managaytay, who were with Armando Jr. at the time of the shooting. These witnesses positively identified Ohayas as the shooter. Their accounts detailed how Ohayas and his group approached the victims and, without provocation, opened fire. Dr. Jesus P. Cerna’s necropsy report confirmed that Armando Jr.’s death was due to shotgun wounds. The defense, on the other hand, offered an alibi, with Ohayas claiming he was fishing at sea during the incident and that his cousins were responsible for the shooting.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Ohayas guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages to the victim’s family. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, with a slight modification regarding the recipient of the civil indemnity. Unsatisfied, Ohayas appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the lower courts’ findings and arguing that the prosecution failed to prove treachery beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the conviction, meticulously examined the elements of murder. The Court reiterated that the elements of the crime of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proving the presence of a qualifying circumstance, such as treachery, to elevate the crime from homicide to murder.

Regarding treachery, the Court cited settled jurisprudence, stating:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This definition highlights that treachery involves a deliberate and unexpected attack that ensures the execution of the crime without affording the victim any opportunity to defend themselves.

The Court found that the attack on Armando Jr. was indeed treacherous. The victim, a young boy, was simply conversing with friends when Ohayas suddenly and without warning shot him. This suddenness denied Armando Jr. any chance to protect himself. He was unarmed and completely unaware of the impending danger. As the Supreme Court noted, “That alevosia or treachery attended the killing of the victim was apparent from the suddenness of the attack.” This suddenness was a key factor in the Court’s determination that treachery was present.

The Court also addressed the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. While there were minor discrepancies regarding the exact positions of the individuals and the number of shots fired, the Court ruled that these inconsistencies did not detract from the overall credibility of the witnesses. The Court noted that such minor inconsistencies are common in testimonies and often indicate that the witnesses are recounting events as they genuinely recall them, rather than reciting a rehearsed script.

The defense of alibi presented by Ohayas was deemed insufficient. The Court reiterated the well-established rule that for alibi to be given weight, the accused must demonstrate that they were in a different location when the crime occurred and that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the crime scene. In this case, Ohayas failed to provide convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the scene of the shooting. Thus, the defense of alibi was rejected.

Building on the principle of treachery, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. This principle is rooted in the fundamental right to life and the State’s duty to protect its citizens from unlawful violence. Treachery ensures that the perpetrator is held accountable to the fullest extent of the law when they exploit a victim’s vulnerability.

In light of prevailing jurisprudence, the Supreme Court modified the damages awarded by the appellate court. The heirs of Armando Kyamko, Jr. were awarded PhP75,000 as civil indemnity, PhP75,000 as moral damages, and PhP75,000 as exemplary damages. Furthermore, the Court awarded temperate damages in the amount of PhP50,000, recognizing the pecuniary losses suffered by the victim’s family, even though the exact amount of expenses was not proven. All damages were ordered to earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Ohayas underscores the importance of treachery as a qualifying circumstance in murder cases. The ruling reinforces the principle that those who deliberately employ means to ensure the execution of a crime against a person, without risk to themselves, will be held accountable for the greater offense of murder. The decision serves as a reminder that the element of surprise and the defenselessness of the victim are critical factors in determining the severity of the crime.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in the killing of Armando Kyamko, Jr., thus justifying the conviction for murder. The court examined whether the attack was sudden and unexpected, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the accused.
What is the legal definition of treachery?	Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It involves a deliberate and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim.
What evidence did the prosecution present?	The prosecution presented eyewitness testimonies identifying the accused as the shooter and a necropsy report confirming the cause of death as shotgun wounds. These testimonies detailed the sudden and unprovoked nature of the attack.
What was the accused’s defense?	The accused claimed alibi, stating he was fishing at sea during the incident and that his cousins were responsible for the shooting. He denied being present at the crime scene and denied any involvement in the crime.
How did the Court address inconsistencies in witness testimonies?	The Court ruled that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies did not detract from their overall credibility. The Court considered such inconsistencies as natural occurrences when individuals recall a sudden and violent event.
What damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs?	The heirs of the victim were awarded PhP75,000 as civil indemnity, PhP75,000 as moral damages, PhP75,000 as exemplary damages, and PhP50,000 as temperate damages. All damages were ordered to earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment.
What is the significance of proving treachery in a murder case?	Proving treachery elevates the crime from homicide to murder, resulting in a more severe penalty. Treachery demonstrates a higher degree of culpability because the perpetrator deliberately planned the attack to ensure its success.
What is the difference between civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages?	Civil indemnity is compensation for the loss suffered by the victim’s heirs due to the crime. Moral damages are awarded for mental anguish, wounded feelings, and similar suffering. Exemplary damages are imposed as a form of punishment and to serve as a deterrent.
What is temperate damages?	Temperate damages are awarded when the court is convinced that there has been some pecuniary loss suffered but the amount cannot be proved with certainty.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Ohayas serves as a significant precedent, clarifying the application of treachery in murder cases and reinforcing the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals from sudden and unprovoked attacks. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Ohayas, G.R. No. 207516, June 19, 2017