GR 181843; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181843 ; July 14, 2014
MIGUEL CIRERA y USTELO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Miguel Cirera was charged with two counts of Frustrated Murder for stabbing Gerardo Naval and Romeo Austria. The prosecution alleged that on April 20, 2000, at a wake in Quezon City, an argument ensued after Cirera asked Austria for money. When Naval intervened and asked Austria to go home, Cirera became irked. Austria testified he stood up and suddenly felt he was stabbed. He saw Cirera armed with a knife, then chasing Naval. Naval testified he felt a hard blow on his back, turned to retaliate, but ran upon seeing Cirera’s knife. He fell, and as Cirera was about to stab him again, Naval hit Cirera with a bench. Both victims survived after medical treatment.
The defense presented a different version. Cirera claimed that Naval initiated the confrontation by punching him, and he was subsequently hit on the head with a hard object, causing him to lose consciousness. He denied stabbing the complainants. The Regional Trial Court found Cirera guilty of two counts of Frustrated Murder, qualified by treachery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently proven to convict the petitioner of Frustrated Murder.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that treachery was not established. The essence of treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. It must be proven as clearly as the crime itself. In this case, the attack did not exhibit this deliberate manner of execution. The stabbing occurred during a sudden heated argument and a physical confrontation initiated by the victims. The prosecution’s own evidence showed an exchange of words and a prior altercation, indicating that the attack was not insidious or unexpected from the standpoint of the victims. The Court emphasized that unexpectedness alone does not equate to treachery; the assailant must have employed a method that deliberately negates any possible defense. Consequently, without treachery, the crimes committed were not Murder or Frustrated Murder. The Court modified the conviction to two counts of Frustrated Homicide, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and adjusting the awarded damages accordingly.