G.R. No. L-9781; July 30, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGUSTIN LANSAÑGAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Agustin Lansañgan, was charged with the crime of assassination for the killing of Marcelino Tipay, a seven-year-old child. The defendant had previously cohabited with the child’s mother, Maria Bautista. After a quarrel, he left their home, threatening to kill her or her children. On the afternoon of December 6, 1913, in Concepcion, Tarlac, the defendant was seen inducing the child to accompany him toward an estero (creek). When the child did not return home, a search was conducted. Later that evening, the defendant was met on the road leaving the estero with his clothing wet up to his waist. Upon being questioned about the child’s whereabouts, he returned to the estero, retrieved the child’s body from the water, and brought it ashore. Examination revealed the child’s cervical vertebra had been dislocated. The defendant was arrested, and after a preliminary investigation, the case was tried in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. The trial court found him guilty of homicide, sentencing him to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with indemnity and costs. The defendant appealed, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether the crime committed should be qualified as homicide or assassination (murder with treachery or alevosia).

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. The crime is qualified as assassination due to the presence of treachery (alevosia). Applying jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Spain, which this Court has followed, treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms that ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense of the victim. In this case, the victim was a child of tender years (seven years old). An attack by an adult upon such a child inherently involves no risk of personal injury to the assailant, as the child is incapable of offering any defense. Therefore, the manner of attack constitutes treachery, qualifying the crime as assassination.

The Court found no aggravating circumstances. However, considering the defendant’s ignorance, he was given the benefit of Article 11 of the Penal Code as an extenuating circumstance. Applying the minimum penalty for the crime, the defendant is sentenced to twenty years of cadena temporal, with the accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.