GR 128281; (May, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128281 , May 30, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO SARAGINA @ “CARLING”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Carlito Saragina, was charged with Murder for the killing of Antonio Vulpangco. The prosecution evidence established that on April 1, 1992, Saragina, armed with two butcher knives, and his co-accused William Langcuyan approached the victim at his barbecue stand. After Langcuyan pointed to Vulpangco, Saragina immediately rushed towards and chased him. Saragina first stabbed the victim in the back. When the wounded victim fell in a nearby alley, Saragina pursued and hacked him on the face, causing instantaneous death. The Regional Trial Court convicted Saragina of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, Saragina claimed self-defense, alleging that the victim first attacked him with a knife during a confrontation over a prior complaint involving his sister, forcing him to wrestle the weapon away and stab Vulpangco. He also argued that the prosecution witnesses were biased and that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of Murder, specifically in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court rejected the claim of self-defense, as the accused-appellant failed to prove its essential elements clearly and convincingly. His flight from the crime scene and his act of pursuing and inflicting a second fatal blow upon the already wounded and fleeing victim negated any claim of legitimate defense.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court found that treachery was not established. While the initial attack was sudden, the prosecution evidence showed an interval between the first and second attacks. The victim was forewarned by a bystander, managed to run away, and was chased. This break in the attack allowed the victim a possibility of escape or defense, however slight, thereby removing the element of surprise and ensuring the victim’s inability to defend himself that is required for treachery. Evident premeditation was also not proven, as the mere knowledge of a prior misunderstanding between the victim and the accused’s sister a week before the incident, without evidence of planning and preparation, is insufficient.
Consequently, the killing constituted Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Saragina to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity was affirmed.