G.R. No. 116739 ; July 31, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO TORTOSA y BACLAO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 13, 1992, Ricardo Tortosa hacked his cousin, Eufresino Baclao, to death. The incident occurred in the evening at a sari-sari store where the victim was drinking alone. Prosecution witnesses Elena San Jose and Norlito Surwez testified that the accused arrived and immediately hacked the victim from behind with a bolo, delivering multiple fatal wounds. The victim, a polio survivor with a physical disability, died shortly after. Tortosa surrendered to police two days later. At trial, he claimed that store owner Norlito Surwez was the actual killer, alleging a motive rooted in a property dispute between Surwez and the victim.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Tortosa of Murder, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay damages. The court offset the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Tortosa appealed, contesting the credibility of witnesses, the presence of qualifying and aggravating circumstances, the offsetting of his voluntary surrender, and the award of damages.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of Murder by appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, and in its application of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and award of damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, convicting the accused of Homicide, not Murder. The Court found treachery was not established. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The suddenness of an attack alone is insufficient. Here, the attack occurred face-to-face while the victim was seated and aware of the accused’s presence; there was no evidence the accused consciously employed a specific method to ensure the victim could not defend himself. Thus, the killing lacked the requisite deliberateness for treachery.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that evident premeditation was not proven. The earlier barangay confrontation between the parties showed a motive but did not establish clear proof of a deliberate plan to kill, a sufficient lapse of time to reflect on the plan, and unwavering persistence in executing it. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was also not appreciated, as it was not alleged in the information. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was duly proven, therefore stood without any offsetting aggravating circumstance. Consequently, the crime is Homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty. The award of exemplary damages was deleted due to the absence of aggravating circumstances, but moral damages and civil indemnity were affirmed.