In People v. Menil, the Supreme Court clarified the application of treachery in homicide cases, emphasizing that a sudden attack alone is insufficient to qualify the crime as murder. The Court stressed the need for clear and convincing evidence that the accused deliberately adopted the means of execution to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to themselves. This decision serves as a crucial reminder that a prior altercation can negate the element of treachery if the attack occurs shortly after, suggesting a lack of deliberate planning.

From Altercation to Sidewalk Shooting: When Does a Homicide Qualify as Murder?

The case revolves around an incident that occurred in Butuan City on December 28, 1993. SPO2 Edgardo Menil was accused of murdering Edwin B. Bagaslao. The prosecution argued that Menil shot Bagaslao with treachery and evident premeditation after a heated argument at a Christmas party. Menil, however, claimed self-defense, stating that he and Bagaslao grappled for his revolver, which accidentally discharged, leading to Bagaslao’s death. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Menil of Murder, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), albeit with modifications on the damages awarded.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the lower courts’ assessment of treachery. It emphasized that treachery is not presumed and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, stating:

Treachery is never presumed. It is required that the manner of attack must be shown to have been attended by treachery as conclusively as the crime itself.

The Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish that Menil deliberately employed a treacherous mode of attack. The events leading up to the shooting—a heated altercation, a brief period of pacification, and the immediate act of shooting—suggested a crime committed in the heat of the moment rather than a planned execution. The victim, having just been in an argument with the accused, should have been aware of a potential threat, diminishing the element of surprise necessary for treachery. The court referenced the testimony of Coloma, the victim’s common-law wife:

When we were already downstairs, and we were already taking the path on the sidewalk of the Sing-Sing Garden, all of a sudden this Edgardo Menil approached us from behind. I heard a soft gun report.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court distinguished between a sudden attack and a treacherous one. It reiterated that for treachery to exist, two elements must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and (b) said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. The court noted that the second element was missing in this case, clarifying that the means of execution used by Menil was not proven to be deliberately or consciously adopted.

The Court stated that Menil’s actions seemed more like a result of a sudden impulse stemming from the prior altercation rather than a carefully planned act. The ruling aligns with previous jurisprudence that chance encounters, impulse killings, or crimes preceded by heated altercations generally lack the element of treachery because there’s no opportunity for the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. This contrasts with scenarios where the accused meticulously plans the attack to ensure its success without risk to themselves.

The Supreme Court consequently downgraded Menil’s conviction from Murder to Homicide. This decision was based on the absence of treachery. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code specifies that the penalty for Homicide is reclusion temporal. Given that no modifying circumstances were present, the penalty was imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Menil to an indeterminate term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the matter of damages, adjusting the amounts in accordance with the reclassification of the crime. Citing People v. Jugueta, the Court modified the damages awarded to the heirs of Edwin B. Bagaslao. The revised amounts included P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, reflecting the gravity of the offense while aligning with established precedents for homicide cases. The change in the type of crime necessarily changes the award of damages. Aggravating circumstance affects it.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case offers a clear guide on how treachery should be appreciated in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder to the lower courts to carefully examine the factual circumstances. The courts must ensure that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the accused deliberately employed a treacherous mode of attack. Without such evidence, the accused cannot be convicted of murder. The presence of a prior altercation, the spontaneity of the attack, and the victim’s awareness of potential danger are all factors that can negate the element of treachery, as demonstrated in this case. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between a sudden, impulsive act and a deliberately planned crime.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the killing of Edwin B. Bagaslao by SPO2 Edgardo Menil was attended by treachery, which would qualify the crime as murder, or if it should be considered homicide.
What is treachery in legal terms?	Treachery is the deliberate employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate, and that the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
Why did the Supreme Court downgrade the conviction from Murder to Homicide?	The Supreme Court downgraded the conviction because the prosecution failed to prove that the accused deliberately adopted the means of execution, suggesting the crime was committed in the heat of the moment after a prior altercation.
What is the significance of a prior altercation in determining treachery?	A prior altercation can negate treachery because it suggests that the victim was aware of a potential threat, reducing the element of surprise necessary for establishing treachery.
What are the two elements that must be present for treachery to be appreciated?	The two elements are: (a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and, (b) said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
What was the penalty imposed by the Supreme Court for Homicide in this case?	The Supreme Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
How did the Supreme Court modify the damages awarded?	The Supreme Court modified the damages to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence for homicide cases.
What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires courts to impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment, allowing for parole consideration after the minimum term has been served.

The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as an essential guide for understanding the nuances of treachery in criminal law. It emphasizes the importance of deliberate intent in the commission of a crime. This intent ensures fair and accurate application of the law. By clarifying the circumstances under which treachery can be appreciated, the decision protects individuals from being unduly convicted of more serious offenses. It is very important to seek legal counsel.

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. Menil, G.R. No. 233205, June 26, 2019