In People v. Pulgo, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Marcial D. Pulgo for murder, underscoring that treachery, as a qualifying circumstance, can exist even in a frontal attack if the assault is sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend themselves. This decision reinforces the principle that the essence of treachery lies in the element of surprise and the defenselessness of the victim, not necessarily the direction from which the attack originates. This ruling clarifies the application of treachery in murder cases, emphasizing the importance of the victim’s ability to mount a defense against an unexpected assault.

Sudden Strike: When a Frontal Assault Becomes Treacherous

The case revolves around the fatal stabbing of Romeo Lambo by Marcial D. Pulgo in Lorega, San Miguel, Cebu City. The prosecution’s key witness, Aurelio Sindangan, testified that Pulgo unexpectedly stabbed Lambo while he and Lambo were standing together. Pulgo denied the crime, claiming he was in Moalboal, Cebu, at the time of the incident, presenting an alibi supported by his mother and brother. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Pulgo guilty of murder, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The central legal question is whether the element of treachery was sufficiently proven to qualify the killing as murder, considering Pulgo’s argument that the attack was not from behind.

The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the lower courts’ findings, emphasizing the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitness. The Court reiterated the principle that trial courts are in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, given their opportunity to observe their demeanor during trial. The SC found no reason to overturn the RTC’s assessment, as affirmed by the CA, that Aurelio Sindangan’s testimony was credible and consistent. The SC underscored that minor inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony do not necessarily impair their credibility, especially when the core of their testimony remains consistent.

Building on this principle, the Court addressed Pulgo’s argument that Aurelio’s testimony was inconsistent regarding which side of Lambo’s body was stabbed. The SC dismissed this argument, stating that minor inconsistencies do not undermine the overall credibility of the witness, especially when the witness is consistent in identifying the assailant. Citing People v. Galvez, the Court explained that inconsistencies on minor details reinforce rather than weaken credibility:

It may be noted that while Danilo Julia and Loreto Palad testified that Romen Castro had been stabbed on the right side of his back, the autopsy report stated that the stab wound was located at the left lumbar area of the victim. This single lapse on a minor detail cannot, however, undermine the credibility of these prosecution witnesses… But when such inconsistencies are minor in character, not only do they not detract from the credibility of the witnesses but they in fact enhance it for they erase any suggestion of a rehearsed testimony.

Turning to the crucial element of treachery, the SC defined it as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime that directly and specially ensure its execution without risk to the offender from the defense the offended party might make. The Court emphasized that two elements must concur to establish treachery: (1) the victim was not in a position to defend himself at the time of the attack, and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed. In this case, the SC found that both elements were present, as Lambo was unarmed and unaware of Pulgo’s impending assault, rendering him defenseless.

The Court rejected Pulgo’s argument that treachery was absent because Aurelio did not explicitly state that the attack was from behind. Citing People v. Alfon, the SC clarified that:

The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. This criterion applies, whether the attack is frontal or from behind. Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.

Therefore, the suddenness of the attack and the victim’s inability to defend himself were the determining factors, not the direction of the attack.

Addressing Pulgo’s alibi, the SC reiterated that positive identification prevails over alibi, as the latter is easily fabricated and inherently unreliable. Moreover, the Court noted that Pulgo’s alibi was corroborated only by his relatives, whose testimonies are viewed with suspicion due to their potential bias. Additionally, the SC found that it was not physically impossible for Pulgo to be at the scene of the crime, as Moalboal is only a three-hour drive from Lorega. Consequently, Pulgo’s alibi and denial were deemed insufficient to overcome the prosecution’s evidence.

Having established all the elements of murder, the SC affirmed Pulgo’s conviction. The Court clarified that the penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Absent any aggravating circumstances other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court upheld the CA’s imposition of reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the SC increased the exemplary damages awarded to Lambo’s heirs from PhP 30,000 to PhP 75,000 and the temperate damages from PhP 25,000 to PhP 50,000. The Court also specified that all damages and the civil indemnity would be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the element of treachery was sufficiently proven to qualify the killing as murder, despite the argument that the attack was not from behind.
What is treachery in the context of murder?	Treachery is the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime that directly and specially ensure its execution without risk to the offender from the defense the offended party might make. It requires that the victim was not in a position to defend themselves, and the offender consciously adopted the means of attack.
Can a frontal attack be considered treacherous?	Yes, a frontal attack can be considered treacherous if it is sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim unable to defend themselves. The direction of the attack is not the determining factor, but rather the defenselessness of the victim.
What is the significance of the eyewitness testimony in this case?	The eyewitness testimony of Aurelio Sindangan was crucial, as he positively identified Marcial Pulgo as the assailant. The Supreme Court gave weight to the trial court’s assessment of Aurelio’s credibility.
What was the accused’s defense in this case?	The accused, Marcial Pulgo, presented an alibi, claiming he was in Moalboal, Cebu, at the time of the incident. He also presented the testimonies of his mother and brother to support his alibi.
Why was the accused’s alibi rejected by the court?	The alibi was rejected because positive identification of the accused prevailed, and the alibi was corroborated only by relatives, whose testimonies are viewed with suspicion. It was also not physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime.
What was the penalty imposed on the accused?	The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two indivisible penalties for murder, as there were no other aggravating circumstances other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
What damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs?	The victim’s heirs were awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages, all subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

This case underscores the importance of the element of surprise in determining treachery in murder cases under Philippine law. It clarifies that treachery can exist even in frontal attacks, provided the attack is sudden and the victim is defenseless. This ruling highlights the need for careful evaluation of eyewitness testimonies and the rejection of weak alibis.

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 of the Philippines vs. Marcial D. Pulgo, G.R. No. 218205, July 5, 2017