GR 40694; (August, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-40694 August 31, 1976
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS ALETA and BENJAMIN ENCARNACION, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of December 13, 1971, in Diffun, Quirino, several individuals, including the victim Zacarias Tottoc, were gathered in a hospital dining room. Appellant Carlos Aleta, after losing money in a card game, resented a remark made by Tottoc. Aleta later approached Tottoc from behind, snatched the latter’s gun, and shot him point-blank in the abdomen. A struggle ensued, during which appellant Benjamin Encarnacion intervened, took the gun from Aleta, and, after kicking the already wounded and unarmed Tottoc to the floor, shot him twice more. Both appellants then fled the scene. Tottoc died from his injuries.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the appellants are guilty of murder or homicide, specifically concerning the appreciation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances like treachery and abuse of superiority.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Carlos Aleta for murder but modified that of Benjamin Encarnacion to homicide. The legal logic hinges on the specific knowledge and cooperation required for the circumstance of treachery to aggravate the liability of all participants. For Aleta, treachery was properly appreciated because he initiated the fatal attack by shooting Tottoc from behind without warning, employing a method that deliberately ensured the execution without risk to himself. This direct, sudden assault constituted alevosia.
For Encarnacion, however, the Court ruled treachery could not be applied. Under Article 62(4) of the Revised Penal Code, circumstances like treachery that pertain to the manner of execution aggravate liability only for those who had knowledge of them at the time of their cooperation. The evidence showed Encarnacion intervened after Aleta’s treacherous attack had already commenced. When Encarnacion shot Tottoc, they were facing each other, and Tottoc was actively trying to recover his gun; the mode of attack at that stage did not involve the same surpise or helplessness. Nevertheless, Encarnacion’s act of shooting a wounded and unarmed man constituted manifest abuse of superiority. As this aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the information, it was considered generic. Consequently, Encarnacion was guilty only of homicide, aggravated by abuse of superiority, not murder. The Court also denied Encarnacion’s motion to withdraw his appeal, having reviewed the case on its merits and found grounds for a modification favorable to him.