GR 122103; (November, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122103 ; November 4, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILFREDO PABILLO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Wilfredo Pabillo and his father, Alfredo, were charged with Murder for the killing of Francisco Ipil. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Francisco Dador, testified that on the evening of November 30, 1986, during a prayer gathering, the Pabillos, armed with bolos, called the victim outside. As Ipil approached, Wilfredo pushed him, causing him to stumble, and then immediately hacked him on the head. As Ipil fell, Alfredo hacked his arm. Ipil attempted to flee but was struck on the back by Wilfredo before falling into a creek. The victim later identified his assailants to his brother before dying. The defense presented a different account, claiming the killing resulted from a sudden quarrel between Alfredo and the victim, with Wilfredo alleging he was merely trying to pacify them and was not the aggressor.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) was proven to convict Wilfredo Pabillo of Murder, or if the crime should be homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder, finding treachery present. The legal logic hinges on the concurrence of two conditions for treachery: (1) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of such means. The Court found both conditions satisfied. The attack was sudden and unexpected. The victim was unarmed and was called out peacefully. The immediate push and hack to the head by Wilfredo, executed while the victim was off-balance and before any possible aggression from him, ensured the victim had no chance to put up a defense. The fact that the accused were armed with bolos and attacked in concert from the outset demonstrated a deliberate method to ensure the execution without risk to themselves. The defense of sudden quarrel was rejected as the prosecution evidence clearly established a deliberate and treacherous assault, not a spontaneous fight. Thus, the crime was properly qualified as Murder.