G.R. No. 213415. September 26, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JIMMY EVASCO Y NUGAY AND ERNESTO ECLAVIA, ACCUSED. JIMMY EVASCO Y NUGAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jimmy Evasco was charged with Murder for the killing of Wilfredo Sasot. The prosecution alleged that on June 6, 2006, Jimmy, armed with a stone, and his co-accused Ernesto Eclavia, with intent to kill and taking advantage of superior strength, attacked and hit Wilfredo on the head, causing fatal injuries. Prosecution witnesses Lorna Sasot and Joan Fernandez testified that they saw Ernesto boxing Wilfredo while Jimmy repeatedly struck Wilfredo’s head with a stone. They stated Wilfredo could not flee as both accused were holding him, and he merely parried the blows without fighting back effectively. The defense presented a different version, claiming the incident stemmed from a fistfight between Ernesto and Wilfredo during a drinking session, and that Jimmy was restrained from interfering.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Jimmy of Murder, finding the presence of treachery and abuse of superior strength, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Jimmy appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength attended the killing to justify a conviction for Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength with moral certainty. For treachery to be present, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted without danger to the accused from any defense the victim might make. The evidence showed the attack commenced with a sudden fistfight between Ernesto and the victim, which then escalated when Jimmy used a stone. The initial aggression was not shown to be so sudden and unexpected as to deprive the victim of any opportunity to defend himself, especially since the victim was reportedly parrying blows. Treachery cannot be presumed; it must be proven as clearly as the crime itself.
Regarding abuse of superior strength, the Court ruled that mere numerical superiority or the use of a weapon does not automatically constitute this aggravating circumstance. There must be a showing of gross disproportionality of strength, taking into account all tools, skills, and capabilities available to both parties. Here, while two assailants attacked one victim and one used a stone, the circumstances did not conclusively establish such a gross imbalance. The victim was not shown to be particularly weak, frail, or otherwise at a pronounced disadvantage that the accused consciously exploited. Consequently, the killing was not qualified to Murder. The Court found Jimmy guilty of the lesser crime of Homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with corresponding modified civil liabilities.