In People v. Lagman, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Cecilia Lagman for murder, emphasizing the presence of treachery in the fatal stabbing of Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago. The Court modified the ruling on a separate charge of physical injuries, reducing it to slight physical injuries due to lack of evidence supporting a more severe classification. This decision underscores the importance of proving elements of crimes beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the qualifying circumstances like treachery that elevate homicide to murder.

Sudden Strike: When Lighting a Cigarette Turns Deadly

The case revolves around an incident on February 24, 2002, in Manila, where Cecilia Lagman was accused of stabbing Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago to death and inflicting injuries on Violeta Sicor. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony from Donna Maniego, who witnessed Lagman stabbing Santiago multiple times without warning. The defense argued inconsistencies in Maniego’s testimony and questioned the presence of treachery, citing a prior altercation between Lagman and Maniego.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Lagman guilty of murder and less serious physical injuries, while the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed these findings. The Supreme Court, however, modified the CA’s decision, maintaining the murder conviction but reducing the physical injuries charge to slight physical injuries. At the heart of the matter was whether the prosecution successfully proved that the killing of Santiago was attended by treachery, a key element in classifying the crime as murder under Philippine law.

To secure a conviction for murder, the prosecution must establish several elements, including proving that the accused killed the victim and that the killing was attended by a qualifying circumstance, such as treachery. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), murder is defined as unlawful killing with specific aggravating circumstances. In this case, the prosecution argued that Lagman’s actions met the definition of treachery, as she allegedly attacked Santiago without warning, leaving him no opportunity to defend himself.

Treachery, as defined in Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC, involves the direct 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.

Paragraph 16, Art. 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The Supreme Court emphasized that for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The court cited Maniego’s testimony, which stated that Lagman stabbed Santiago without any warning while he was lighting a cigarette.

The essence of treachery lies in the sudden and unexpected nature of the attack, which deprives the victim of any chance to resist or escape. In People v. Tomas, Sr., the Supreme Court reiterated this principle, highlighting that the attack must be deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.

The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. – People v. Barangay Capt. Tomas, Sr., G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011

Despite the defense’s argument about the height disparity between Lagman and Santiago, the Court found that Lagman’s method of attack ensured she could fatally wound Santiago without risk to herself. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack negated any perceived advantage Santiago might have had due to his height. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings that treachery was indeed present, thereby justifying the conviction for murder.

In assessing the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, the Supreme Court applied the well-established principle that the trial court’s findings of fact and assessment of testimonies are generally given conclusive effect. The trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth. Accused-appellant failed to show why Maniego and her mother would falsely accuse her of committing a terrible crime. Maniego was the common-law spouse of the victim and she would naturally want to seek justice for his death as well as the injury sustained by her mother.

The defense of alibi was also deemed unconvincing. Lagman admitted to confronting Maniego shortly before the stabbing incident, placing her in the vicinity of the crime scene. It is well-settled that alibi cannot be sustained where it is not only without credible corroboration but also does not, on its face, demonstrate the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.

Regarding the charge of frustrated murder for the injuries inflicted on Violeta Sicor, the Court modified the conviction to slight physical injuries. The evidence did not support a finding that Sicor was incapacitated for labor for ten days or more, nor did she require medical attention for the same period, which is a requirement for less serious physical injuries under Article 265 of the RPC.

Art. 265 of the RPC provides, “Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described [as serious physical injuries] but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten (10) days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.”

The records showed that Sicor was released from the hospital just two hours after receiving treatment and that there was no clear evidence of the duration or extent of her medical treatment. As such, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the elements necessary for a conviction of less serious physical injuries and instead convicted Lagman of slight physical injuries, punishable under Article 266 of the RPC.

In terms of pecuniary liability, the Supreme Court modified the award of damages to align with prevailing jurisprudence. The Court ordered Lagman to indemnify the heirs of Santiago with PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, with an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid. However, the award of PhP 25,000 in temperate damages to Sicor was deleted, as only slight physical injuries were committed and no proof of medical expenses was presented during the trial.

This case underscores several critical principles in Philippine criminal law. First, it reinforces the importance of proving all elements of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, including qualifying circumstances such as treachery. Second, it highlights the deference given to trial courts in assessing the credibility of witnesses, given their unique position to observe their demeanor. Finally, it illustrates the nuanced application of the Revised Penal Code in determining the appropriate charges and penalties based on the specific facts and evidence presented.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the killing of Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago was attended by treachery, thereby justifying the conviction for murder, and whether the charge of frustrated murder for the injuries inflicted on Violeta Sicor was appropriately classified.
What is treachery according to the Revised Penal Code?	Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It requires that the victim was not in a position to defend themselves and that the accused deliberately adopted the method of attack.
Why was the charge for Violeta Sicor’s injuries reduced?	The charge was reduced from frustrated murder to slight physical injuries because the prosecution failed to prove that Sicor was incapacitated for labor for ten days or more, or that she required medical attention for the same period, as required for less serious physical injuries.
What damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs?	The heirs of Jondel Mari Davantes Santiago were awarded PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, with an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.
What role did eyewitness testimony play in the decision?	Eyewitness testimony from Donna Maniego was crucial in establishing that Cecilia Lagman stabbed Santiago without warning, thereby demonstrating the element of treachery. The Court found her testimony credible and consistent with the facts of the case.
How does alibi factor into the Court’s decision?	The defense of alibi was rejected because Lagman admitted to being in the vicinity of the crime scene shortly before the stabbing incident, and there was no credible corroboration or proof of the physical impossibility of her being present at the time of the crime.
What is the significance of the height disparity argument?	The Court dismissed the argument about the height disparity between Lagman and Santiago, finding that Lagman’s method of attack negated any advantage Santiago might have had due to his height. The element of surprise was a consideration.
What is the penalty for slight physical injuries?	Under par. 1, Art. 266 of the RPC, the penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor “when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lagman reinforces the principles of criminal law, highlighting the importance of proving each element of a crime beyond reasonable doubt and the deference given to trial courts in assessing witness credibility. It serves as a reminder of the severe consequences of violent acts and the justice system’s commitment to holding perpetrators accountable, all while ensuring the law is precisely applied in every case.

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. Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012