GR 122767; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122767; January 20, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JOSEPH CAJURAO, Appellant.
FACTS
On November 29, 1993, during a festival in Surallah, South Cotabato, the appellant, Joseph Cajurao, stabbed Santiago Betita, causing his death. The prosecution’s version, based on eyewitness Pacita Pordios, stated that Betita, appearing perturbed, had taken a makeshift lamp from Pordios’s stall. Suddenly, Cajurao sped towards Betita and stabbed him without any prior altercation. Domingo Tecson, a civilian volunteer, later found the knife and apprehended Cajurao after a chase. The prosecution alleged the killing was attended by treachery.
The appellant admitted the stabbing but claimed self-defense. He testified that Betita had earlier shouted accusations at him inside a gymnasium. Later, outside, Betita slapped him and then fled to Pordios’s stall, seized the lamp, and was about to throw it at him. Cajurao claimed he approached Betita, pushed the hand holding the lamp aside, and only then stabbed him to defend himself. The trial court rejected this defense, convicted him of murder qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the killing of Santiago Betita constituted murder qualified by treachery or the lesser crime of homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The legal logic centered on the failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) beyond reasonable doubt. For treachery to be present, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted by the offender to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. The Court found that the prosecution evidence did not establish this deliberate method.
The eyewitness account merely showed a sudden attack but did not demonstrate that Cajurao employed means to render Betita helpless. The incident occurred in a crowded, lit area where a prior altercation, as testified by the defense witness, was not entirely improbable. The suddenness of an attack alone does not equate to treachery; it must be shown that the assailant made a conscious choice of a mode of execution that would eliminate any risk to himself. Since this conscious adoption was not proven, the crime could only be homicide. The Court affirmed the awards of civil indemnity and actual damages but imposed an indeterminate sentence for homicide.