The Supreme Court in this case affirmed that treachery can still be appreciated even if there was no frontal attack, emphasizing that the suddenness and defenselessness of the victim are key factors in determining its presence. This means that even if the accused attacked from the back or side, the crime can still be considered murder if the victim had no chance to defend himself. The decision underscores that the focus should be on the means of attack ensuring its execution without risk to the assailant and without the victim’s ability to retaliate, thus broadening the understanding of treachery in Philippine criminal law.

Scythe of Surprise: Did a Birthday Celebration Mask a Treacherous Murder?

In People v. Abare, the Court grappled with the intricacies of proving murder, particularly the element of treachery. The case arose from an incident during a birthday celebration where Marcelino Abare was accused of fatally attacking Samson Cuyogan with a scythe. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Abare, during the party, hacked Cuyogan from behind while the latter was seated, leading to his death. Abare, however, claimed he acted on impulse during an argument over unpaid wages. The central legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the attack was indeed treacherous, thus justifying the conviction for murder.

The appellant argued that there was no direct eyewitness to the actual hacking. He cited People v. Lug-aw, claiming that treachery cannot be appreciated without specific details on how the aggression commenced. However, the Court distinguished this case from Lug-aw, pointing out that in the present case, witnesses saw Abare standing behind the victim immediately after the attack, holding a bloodied scythe. The Court found that based on the suddenness of the attack, the witnesses could easily deduce that the appellant committed the act. Even though the witnesses did not actually see the act of hacking due to its suddenness, the circumstantial evidence was convincing enough to establish the crime.

Treachery, or alevosia, is defined as employing means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. The Supreme Court referred to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, outlining murder which can be qualified by treachery. In the case at bar, the two elements for treachery were satisfied. The victim was seated with his back turned against the window at the time of the attack. Additionally, no altercation had transpired between the appellant and the victim prior to the incident, leading to the conclusion that the appellant had consciously chosen a scythe and deliberately hacked the victim from behind.

The defense argued that the attack was merely impulsive, stemming from an argument over unpaid wages. Abare testified that he and the victim struggled for possession of the scythe. However, the Court found this claim unconvincing, stating it is unnatural for a person quarreling with somebody to turn his back on his assailant. Witnesses corroborated that no altercation occurred prior to the attack, and that the appellant left the party earlier. This undermined Abare’s claim that the attack was a result of a sudden quarrel.

Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed the mitigating circumstances invoked by Abare, such as lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party. It clarified that the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated in cases of murder qualified by treachery. Additionally, the victim’s reply of “Problema mo ‘yan, hindi ko problema ‘yan” could hardly be considered sufficient provocation. Consequently, the Court held that even considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the imposable penalty would remain unchanged due to the absence of any aggravating circumstances.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court modified the damages awarded, ordering Abare to pay the heirs of Samson Cuyogan P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. This ruling reinforced the understanding of treachery in Philippine law and its implications in determining the culpability of the accused in cases of murder.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed with treachery, thus qualifying it as murder.
What is treachery (alevosia)?	Treachery is defined as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender and without the victim being able to defend himself. It qualifies a killing as murder.
Did any eyewitnesses directly see the hacking?	No, none of the eyewitnesses directly saw the hacking. However, witnesses saw Abare standing near the victim immediately after the victim fell, holding a bloodied scythe, which was enough circumstantial evidence.
What was the appellant’s defense?	The appellant claimed he acted on impulse during an argument over unpaid wages and that he did not intend to kill the victim. He stated the victim’s refusal to pay him led to a sudden fight.
Did the Court find the appellant’s defense credible?	No, the Court did not find the appellant’s defense credible. The Court pointed out that the eyewitnesses confirmed that the accused had left the party, and the argument that followed after that point was not credible, especially given that someone would be unlikely to turn their back when fighting someone holding a scythe.
What mitigating circumstances did the appellant invoke?	The appellant invoked the mitigating circumstances of no intention to commit so grave a wrong and sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party.
How did the Court rule on the mitigating circumstances?	The Court ruled that the mitigating circumstances did not apply. Lack of intent cannot be applied in murders with treachery and the victim’s response was not a sufficient form of provocation.
What was the final ruling?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Abare guilty of murder, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs.

This case clarifies that treachery focuses on the unexpected and defenseless nature of an attack, emphasizing how it ensures the crime’s execution without risk to the assailant. The decision offers a vital lesson: the manner of attack, rather than its direction, determines the presence of treachery in the eyes of the law.

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. Marcelino Abare, G.R. No. 172973, December 18, 2008