G.R. No. L-7162, December 3, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TOMAS CUEVA and PLATON CUEVA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Defendants Tomas Cueva and Platon Cueva were charged with murder. The trial court convicted both and sentenced them to reclusion temporal. During appeal, Tomas Cueva died, so the case proceeded only against Platon Cueva. The evidence showed that Platon held the victim, Jose Tilapan, by the right arm while Tomas inflicted fatal wounds with a sharp bamboo. The victim’s widow, Marciana Mamaboy, testified that she heard her husband cry out, “So you’re going to kill me?” and upon looking, saw Tomas withdrawing the weapon and Platon releasing the victim’s arm. She did not witness the beginning of the assault.

ISSUE

Whether the crime should be classified as murder due to the presence of treachery (alevosia), or merely as homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment, classifying the crime as homicide and not murder. The Court held that treachery was not sufficiently proven. While Platon’s act of holding the victim facilitated the killing, the record lacked details on how the assault began or developed. The widow’s testimony only captured the concluding phase, not the initial moments, leaving open the possibility of a prior struggle or altercation that could have forewarned the victim. The phrase uttered by the victim suggested some preceding exchange. Without clear evidence that the victim was seized suddenly and unexpectedly, thereby deprived of any chance to defend himself from the outset, the qualifying circumstance of treachery could not be established. The case of U.S. v. Feria was distinguished, as there the sudden and unexpected seizure was positively proven. Thus, Platon Cueva, as a principal by cooperation, was guilty only of homicide. The penalty imposed by the lower court was sustained.

Separate Opinion (Dissent):
Justice Torres dissented, arguing that the crime was murder with treachery. He relied on the victim’s dying declaration and the widow’s eyewitness account, which together showed Platon held the victim to facilitate the unguarded attack. He believed this constituted sufficient proof of treachery.