GR 91999; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91999 February 25, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO PIAMONTE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s case relied on eyewitness David Morte, who testified that on the evening of September 17, 1988, while he, the victim Benjamin Sarmiento, and Antonio Nito were walking, accused-appellant Antonio Piamonte suddenly appeared and stabbed Sarmiento. Morte claimed he recognized Piamonte despite the darkness due to ambient light. The other eyewitness, Antonio Nito, gave a contradictory account, stating it was too dark to recognize the assailant and that he only identified Piamonte in his sworn statement based on “the shape of his body.” The autopsy confirmed the victim died from multiple stab wounds.
For the defense, Piamonte admitted to the stabbing but claimed self-defense. He testified that the victim and two companions, including David Morte, attacked him twice that evening while they were drunk. During the second altercation, he alleged that Sarmiento drew a knife, lunged at him, and he managed to wrest the weapon away and stab Sarmiento in the ensuing struggle. He asserted existing family animosity due to a prior killing involving their relatives.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court found the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery beyond reasonable doubt. While the eyewitness David Morte stated the attack was sudden, his cross-examination revealed they saw the assailant from a distance before the stabbing, negating the element of surprise which is essential for treachery. The means of execution was not shown to have been deliberately adopted to ensure the crime’s commission without risk to the assailant, especially since the victim had two companions present. The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the self-defense claim, as Piamonte’s testimony was uncorroborated and his claim of having thrown the knife away was unconvincing. With no qualifying circumstance, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was imposed within the medium period of reclusion temporal, and the civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.