G.R. No. L-39777 August 31, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX ATIENZA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on the evening of April 20, 1972, a drinking party was held at the house of Atty. Jose Parentela, Sr. in Lucena City. Among the guests were the accused, Felix Atienza, and his common-law wife, Eleanor Camacho. During the party, a heated altercation erupted after Parentela made inappropriate remarks and physical contact towards Camacho, prompting Atienza to refuse a drink. Parentela then cursed Atienza and ordered him to leave. As Julianita Comia was leading Atienza out, he broke free, stabbed her, and then attacked Parentela, who was stabbed multiple times and later died. Evidence indicated a pre-existing suspicion by Atienza of an amorous relationship between Parentela and Camacho.
The accused, admitting the killing, claimed self-defense. He testified that Parentela, after making advances toward his wife, struck him with a gun and then shot him in the thigh. Atienza alleged he only grappled for the weapon and used a pair of scissors to stab Parentela in defense. He subsequently surrendered to authorities. The trial court convicted him of murder, qualified by treachery, and considered the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, offset by voluntary surrender.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of murder, qualified by treachery, and properly considered the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The legal logic centered on the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. For treachery to exist, the attack must be sudden and unexpected, denying the victim any chance to defend himself. The evidence showed the killing occurred during a heated confrontation that began with Parentela’s provocation. Witness testimony indicated Parentela was facing Atienza during the altercation, and the fatal wounds were inflicted frontally, not from behind. The attack was not a deliberate, premeditated execution but a result of a sudden quarrel, negating the element of surprise essential for treachery.
Regarding dwelling, the Court ruled it should not be considered aggravating. While the incident occurred in the victim’s house, the provocation originated from the victim himself through his insulting acts and advances. Under Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code, dwelling is aggravating only if the offended party has not given provocation. Since sufficient provocation came from Parentela, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was not applicable. With treachery absent, the crime is homicide. Considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty.