GR 138609; (January, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138609 , January 17, 2001
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Mariano Toyco, Sr., Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Mariano Toyco, Sr., along with his two sons, was charged with the murder of ten-year-old Jay-Ar Sumadia. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s father, Primito Sumadia. He testified that on the night of January 5, 1995, the three accused came to their house asking for water. When his son Jay-Ar went to give them water, Mariano Toyco, Sr., who was hiding beneath the house, suddenly chased and hacked the boy with a bolo. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Mariano Toyco, Sr., and his sons were at home sleeping at the time of the incident. The trial court convicted Mariano Toyco, Sr., of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the accused-appellant, Mariano Toyco, Sr., is guilty of murder or a lesser offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court affirmed the credibility of the eyewitness identification by the victim’s father, which was found to be positive, categorical, and consistent, thereby upholding the finding of guilt for the killing. However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven. The prosecution failed to establish how the attack was deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The mere suddenness of the attack is insufficient to constitute treachery; it must be shown that the mode of attack was specifically chosen to eliminate any possible defense from the victim. In the absence of any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years, four months, and twenty days of prision mayor medium as minimum, to seventeen years, six months, and twenty days of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum. The awards for damages were also modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.