G.R. No. 271154 , February 24, 2025.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE M. LOPEZ IN THE CASE INVOLVING FRANCIS PATRICIO, NICHOLAS DIMAGIBA, AND DON DIEGO PASTRANA.

FACTS

The accused, Francis Patricio, Nicholas Dimagiba, and Don Diego Pastrana, were charged with Murder for the killing of Jeffrey De Castro. Prosecution witnesses Jennifer De Castro and Roy Espinosa, Jr. testified that they saw Francis stabbing Jeffrey while Nicholas and Diego held him in a nearby “cara y cruz-an.” Francis repeatedly stabbed Jeffrey, who struggled and tried to defend himself by raising his lower arms. Francis continued stabbing Jeffrey even after he had fallen and was crawling on the ground, until he fell into a river. The autopsy revealed Jeffrey sustained 14 stab wounds to vital organs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) convicted the accused of Murder, finding that treachery was present as the attack was sudden and unexpected, and Jeffrey had no opportunity to defend himself while being held. The ponencia affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present to convict the accused of Murder, or if the crime committed was only Homicide.

RULING

The concurring and dissenting opinion holds that the crime committed is Homicide, not Murder, as the prosecution failed to prove treachery beyond reasonable doubt. Treachery requires that: (1) the victim was in no position to defend himself when attacked; and (2) the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the method of attack to ensure execution without risk. Here, the prosecution witnesses did not see the commencement of the assault; they only saw Francis already stabbing Jeffrey. This gap creates reasonable doubt as to how the aggression started, whether it was initiated by the victim, was a chance encounter, or was preceded by an altercation. Treachery cannot be appreciated where the manner of how the attack began and developed is not proven. Furthermore, the attack occurred in a place with several eyewitnesses and where people were playing, making external help easily available, which negates a deliberate choice to avoid risk. The victim also attempted to defend himself. Therefore, treachery is absent. The opinion concurs with the affirmance of conviction but only for the lesser crime of Homicide.