G.R. No. 117749 ; December 1, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NARDO C. ESPERO a.k.a. DUEG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of November 26, 1993, at a wake in Dagupan City, the accused-appellant, Nardo Espero, who appeared drunk, approached the victim, Jose Tababan. Roderick Perez, a nephew of the victim, testified that Espero dragged Tababan about twenty meters to a vacant lot. Upon reaching the area, which was lit by a lamppost, Perez saw Espero embrace Tababan with his left arm, pull a butcher’s knife with his right hand, and then grapple with the victim for possession of the weapon. Espero succeeded in stabbing Tababan once in the chest. The victim died shortly thereafter from the wound. Espero fled but was apprehended later that night after a chase.
The defense presented a different version. Espero denied the stabbing, claiming he had a prior fistfight with Roderick Perez that evening. He alleged he was later apprehended while defecating at a fishpond, and that he was framed for the killing. The Regional Trial Court convicted Espero of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The legal logic centers on the requirement for treachery (alevosia) under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code. For treachery to qualify a killing as murder, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself arising from any defense the victim might make. Crucially, the attack must be sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to resist or escape.
The Court found the evidence insufficient to prove treachery. The eyewitness account established that the appellant dragged the victim a considerable distance to a vacant lot. More importantly, the two men then grappled for possession of the knife before the fatal stab was delivered. This physical struggle indicates that the victim was not caught completely unaware or defenseless; he was able to put up a fight. Therefore, the manner of attack did not exhibit the suddenness and deliberate adoption of a method to eliminate risk to the aggressor that defines treachery. With treachery not proven, the crime is Homicide under Article 249. The penalty was accordingly reduced to an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity and actual damages were affirmed.