GR 134756; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134756 February 13, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DOMINGO PEREZ Y DE LEON, appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Domingo Perez was convicted of murder for the killing of his former live-in partner, Felicidad Virginiza. The prosecution established that on January 28, 1991, in San Rafael, Bulacan, the victim was seated on a bench having a snack. Appellant suddenly approached from behind, drew a .38 caliber pistol, and shouted at her. As the victim stood up and pleaded “Huwag” with outstretched arms, appellant fired twice, grazing her right forearm. When she turned to escape, she tripped on a tree root and fell face down. Appellant then caught up, raised her head by the hair, and shot her at the nape, causing her death.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming appellant was elsewhere celebrating a birthday. The Regional Trial Court found the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Gilbert Toria and Richard Virginiza credible and ruled that the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying it to murder. Appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages.
ISSUE
Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) was correctly appreciated to convict the appellant of murder.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously applied the legal test for treachery, which requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted by the offender to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. The Court clarified that a frontal attack does not automatically negate treachery. The essence lies in the suddenness and unexpectedness of the assault, leaving the victim with no opportunity to defend oneself or retaliate.
In this case, the attack was treacherous. The victim was unarmed and seated peacefully when appellant, armed with a pistol, initiated a sudden and unexpected assault from behind. Her act of standing up with pleading outstretched arms was a defensive instinct, not a meaningful counter-assault. The sequential shooting—first while she was standing, and the final shot to the nape while she was defenseless on the ground—was a deliberate method to ensure her death without any risk to appellant. The victim was given no real chance to escape or mount a defense. Therefore, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly established, warranting a conviction for murder. The Court modified the award of moral damages from P100,000 to P50,000 but sustained the rest of the trial court’s decision.