G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE DAQUIPIL, HORACE DAQUIPIL, PRIMA DAQUIPIL and GRACE DAQUIPIL, defendants. JOSE DAQUIPIL, HORACE DAQUIPIL, NOEL DAQUIPIL and GARET DAQUIPIL, defendant-appellants.

FACTS

The accused, members of the Daquipil family, were charged with Murder for the killing of Rafael Francisco on May 26, 1979, in Ilog, Negros Occidental. The prosecution established that the motive stemmed from Francisco’s demolition of Jose Daquipil’s house on the subject lot two years prior. On the day of the incident, eyewitnesses Jorge Alayon and Nicasia Tibus testified that they saw Jose, his sons Noel, Horace, and Garet, his wife Prima, and daughter Grace proceed to a construction site where Francisco was overseeing workers. Without warning, Jose struck Francisco with a “tagad” (a farming implement). As Francisco fell, Noel and Horace hacked him with bolos. Garet joined in the attack. After initially walking away upon Jose’s remark that Francisco was dead, the family returned upon the shouts of Prima and Grace to “finish him off” and “cut off his head,” whereupon Garet hacked the victim’s neck and Jose struck his finger.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were sufficiently proven to sustain a conviction for Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation with the required moral certainty. For treachery to qualify the killing to murder, the means of execution must be deliberately adopted without danger to the assailant arising from the defense the victim might make. The evidence showed the attack was frontal, and the victim was not completely helpless; he was standing and able to turn and face his assailants initially. The suddenness of an attack does not automatically constitute treachery. For evident premeditation, the prosecution did not establish clear proof of the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating their determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the resolution and execution to reflect upon the consequences. The two-year interval from the demolition was too remote, and the planning on the morning of the crime was not sufficiently proven. With the qualifying circumstances not established, the killing is Homicide. The Court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and minority (for Garet) and the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which was inherent in the commission of the crime. After offsetting, the penalties were imposed accordingly.