GR 188353; (February, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188353 ; February 16, 2010
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Leozar Dela Cruz y Balobal, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Leozar Dela Cruz was charged with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for hacking Vincent Pimentel with a samurai on April 30, 2003, in Makati City. The prosecution presented eyewitness Sheryll C. Blanco, who testified that she saw Leozar, who was angry and cursing while hacking plants with a samurai, greet Vincent Pimentel, announce that Vincent owed him money, accept PhP 50 from Vincent, and then, upon Vincent’s return from an alley, suddenly place his arm around Vincent and slit his neck with the samurai. Vincent died from hemorrhagic shock secondary to an incised neck wound. The victim’s common-law wife, Carolina Agullana, corroborated the events after the slashing. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Leozar was drinking at a friend’s house in another barangay at the time, and attempted to implicate another individual, Arman Taculod (who died before testifying), as the assailant. The Regional Trial Court convicted Leozar of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded.
ISSUE
Whether the killing was attended by the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, thereby qualifying the crime as Murder, or merely Homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction for Murder. The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that ensured its execution without risk to the offender from any defense the victim might make. Leozar’s act of placing his arm around the victim and then slitting his neck with a samurai was a deliberate and treacherous assault, as the victim was unarmed and unable to defend himself. The fact that Leozar was already armed and visibly agitated prior to the encounter, and that the fatal wound was inflicted on the neck with a lethal weapon, demonstrated the deliberate adoption of means to insure the killing without risk. The defense of alibi was rejected for being weak and uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence. The awards of damages were sustained as modified by the Court of Appeals.