G.R. No. 75394 ; April 22, 1991
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERNANDO MANANTAN y BORJA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Hernando Manantan was convicted of murder for the stabbing death of Renato Nabong. The prosecution evidence established that on June 19, 1985, Manantan stabbed Nabong in the throat, a wound that severed the trachea and esophagus, leading to Nabong’s death eighteen days later. The lone eyewitness, Eddie Cabrera, testified that he saw Manantan with his left hand over Nabong’s shoulder before thrusting a knife horizontally into Nabong’s neck. The trial court found the killing qualified by treachery, concluding that Manantan had held and squeezed Nabong’s neck, rendering him defenseless before the attack.
Manantan admitted to the stabbing but appealed his conviction, arguing that treachery was absent. He further claimed the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, sufficient provocation, and immediate vindication of a grave offense. He alleged that earlier on the day of the incident, Nabong and companions had manhandled and robbed him, and later forced him to dance naked.

ISSUE

Whether the killing was attended by treachery to qualify it as murder, and whether the mitigating circumstances claimed by the appellant are present.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court held that treachery was not proven. The trial court’s conclusion that Manantan squeezed the victim’s neck to ensure defenselessness had no factual basis in the eyewitness testimony. Cabrera stated only that Manantan had his hand on Nabong’s shoulder immediately before the stabbing. This act did not constitute a deliberate and conscious adoption of a method of attack that would ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. Without evidence of a prior neck-squeezing or choking, the victim was not rendered completely helpless, and the attack was not shown to be so sudden and unexpected as to eliminate any opportunity for self-defense.
Regarding mitigating circumstances, the Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the evidence for sufficient provocation and vindication of a grave offense was not credible. The appellant’s story was deemed illogical and contrary to human experience. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated in Manantan’s favor. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty for homicide (reclusion temporal) was applied in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Manantan was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.