G.R. No. 116989 September 20, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO CRUZ @ “Momoy”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Guillermo Cruz was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court for the stabbing death of Alberto Bundoc (also spelled Bondoc). The prosecution evidence established that around midnight on June 13, 1991, in Pulilan, Bulacan, witnesses Antonio Cruz and Giovani Bondoc heard a dog barking. Upon investigating, they saw the accused suddenly stab the victim in the abdomen. The accused fled and was chased but escaped into his house. The victim later died from the stab wound. The prosecution highlighted a prior altercation between the accused and the victim over a “deep-well partition.” The trial court found the attack attended by treachery and nighttime, qualifying the crime to murder, and sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua.
The defense presented a different account, with the accused testifying that he only stoned the dog, prompting Antonio Cruz and Jimmy Bondoc to chase him. He denied stabbing the victim, claiming he was the one assaulted with a piece of wood. His testimony, however, was found by the trial court to be riddled with inconsistencies and unworthy of credence.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of Murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by nighttime.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The legal logic is that for treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the accused employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense the victim might make. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish how the attack commenced. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses only began at the point when the accused was already stabbing the victim; there was no account of the victim’s position or whether he was aware of or could have defended himself from the impending assault. Without these details, the essence of treachery—the deliberate adoption of a method that ensures the execution without risk—cannot be presumed.
Furthermore, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not proven to have been purposely sought by the accused. Testimonies indicated there was illumination from a nearby post, negating the claim that darkness was deliberately used to facilitate the crime. With the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of nighttime unproven, the crime is properly Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.