G.R. No. 213222 . September 24, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ALBERTO PETALINO ALIAS “LANIT,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Alberto Petalino, was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Johnny Nalangay on November 30, 1997, in Iloilo City. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Franklin Bariquit, testified that he and the victim were walking through a narrow alley when they encountered Petalino walking from the opposite direction. After Petalino passed the victim, he suddenly turned back, grabbed the victim’s hair, and without any warning, stabbed him in the back. The victim ran but collapsed. The defense presented a different version, claiming the stabbing occurred during a sudden quarrel after an accidental bump, where the victim allegedly drew a knife first, and Petalino acted in self-defense. The Regional Trial Court convicted Petalino of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated to convict the accused-appellant of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court held that treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. For treachery to qualify a killing as murder, two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of such means. The Court found that the prosecution evidence only established the first condition—the attack was sudden and unexpected. However, it failed to prove the second condition, which requires evidence that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted a mode of attack to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself. The meeting between the accused and the victim in the alley was casual and by chance. The attack, while sudden, appeared to have been impulsive and not the result of a preconceived plan or a deliberate choice of method. Without proof of this deliberate adoption, the killing lacked the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Consequently, the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts regarding the accused’s authorship of the killing, as the positive identification by the eyewitness prevailed over the denial and self-defense claim. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence, and the awarded damages were adjusted in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.