G.R. No. L-68481 February 27, 1987
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. NARCISO ATIENZA y PERALTA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of August 22, 1981, Rodelio Refran was hacked and stabbed to death in an alley in Tondo, Manila, after a birthday celebration. An autopsy confirmed the fatal nature of a deep abdominal stab wound. Initial police investigation, based on sworn statements from neighbors Edmundo Alba and Adelina Panambitan-Lara, pointed to an assailant known as “Boy Hapon” (Rodolfo Ramirez) and an unidentified companion as the perpetrators. The victim’s mother, Bienvenida Refran, did not witness the attack but saw two men fleeing.
More than three months later, on November 27, 1981, appellant Narciso Atienza was arrested based on information from an unidentified informant. The following day, the three aforementioned witnesses identified Atienza in separate police line-ups as the person who hacked the victim. Based on these identifications, Atienza was charged with Murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. The trial court convicted him of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the qualifying circumstance of treachery to sustain a conviction for Murder, or if the crime committed was Homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court affirmed the trial court’s factual findings regarding the appellant’s presence and participation in the killing, holding that the judgment complied with procedural rules and that the eyewitness identifications sufficiently established his guilt for the felonious act.
However, the Court meticulously examined the legal qualification of the crime. It ruled that the trial court erroneously appreciated treachery. The lower court inferred treachery merely from the accused acting in concert with another and from the suddenness of the attack. The Supreme Court emphasized that treachery cannot be presumed; it must be proven as conclusively as the crime itself. The requisite proof—that the mode of attack was consciously adopted by the assailant to ensure the execution of the crime without any risk from the victim’s defense—was absent. The prosecution witnesses did not provide details on the manner of assault. The evidence, indicating frontal wounds, negated a treacherous attack from behind. Mere suddenness, without proof of the deliberate adoption of a method to eliminate risk, is insufficient to constitute treachery.
Consequently, lacking the qualifying circumstance, the crime is Homicide. The Court sentenced Atienza 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 indemnity and actual damages to the victim’s heirs.