G.R. No. 225336 . September 05, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AQUIL PILPA Y DIPAZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Aquil Pilpa, was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Dave Alde on August 23, 2003, in Manila. The prosecution’s eyewitness, barangay tanod Leonila Abuel, testified that she saw a group of five men, including Pilpa and an individual named “JR,” approach the victim’s group. She witnessed “JR” stab Alde in the chest. She further testified that Pilpa, positioned nearby, also attempted to stab Alde but was parried by a companion of the victim. After the initial attack, Pilpa and his group chased the fleeing victim. Alde was brought to the hospital where he identified Pilpa as one of his assailants before succumbing to his wounds. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Pilpa was at a billiard hall and later at home sleeping at the time of the incident, and denied any participation or knowledge of the crime.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Pilpa of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The trial and appellate courts found conspiracy among the assailants, holding Pilpa equally liable as a co-principal despite only “JR” having successfully inflicted a fatal wound. Pilpa appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Aquil Pilpa for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal. It affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide and accordingly reduced the penalty. The Court agreed with the lower courts that conspiracy was established. The simultaneous arrival of Pilpa’s group, their collective aggressive actions against the victim, and their joint flight after the incident demonstrated a community of criminal design. Pilpa’s attempt to stab the victim, even if parried, constituted direct participation. Thus, he was liable as a co-principal by direct participation.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. For treachery to qualify the killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed the attack occurred during a face-to-face, tumultuous altercation involving two groups. The prosecution witness did not testify that the attack was so sudden as to deny the victim any chance to defend himself. The setting was a chance encounter, not a deliberately planned ambush where the mode of attack was consciously chosen for its safety. Absent treachery, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court sentenced Pilpa 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, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages.