People v. Calinawan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Ignacio Calinawan, along with an unknown companion, was riding bicycles in barrio Pakigne, municipality of Minglanilla, Province of Cebu. Upon seeing Romualdo Nacario, the appellant whistled at him. When Nacario ignored the call and continued to run, the appellant dismounted his bicycle and, from a distance of approximately fifty meters, fired a shot that fatally hit Nacario. Procedural History: The People's Court found the appellant guilty of the complex crime of treason with murder, sentencing him to death, a fine of P20,000, and an indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs of Romualdo Nacario. The Petition: The appellant appealed the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant may be held liable for the crime of Treason. Whether the killing of Romualdo Nacario is qualified by Treachery, thereby constituting Murder instead of Homicide. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently pleaded in the Information.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the People's Court. It ruled that the appellant could not be convicted of treason with murder, nor of murder, but only of homicide. The appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, and to indemnify the heirs of Romualdo Nacario in the sum of P2,000, plus costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the lower court erred in convicting the appellant of treason. The Solicitor General and the Court both agreed that the evidence on record was insufficient to establish the elements of treason under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Consequently, the charge of treason must be dropped, and the appellant's liability must be assessed solely based on the act of killing Romualdo Nacario. This necessitates a re-evaluation of the specific circumstances of the killing to determine if it falls under the definition of murder or homicide. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the killing of Romualdo Nacario constitutes Homicide, not Murder, because the qualifying circumstance of treachery was absent. Applying the doctrine in People vs. Cañete (44 Phil., 478), the Court emphasized that treachery exists only when the method of assault is 'deliberately chosen with a special view to the accomplishment of the act without risk to the assailant.' Here, the meeting was casual and there was no evidence that Calinawan was purposely searching for the victim. The firing of the shot was impulsive and occurred while the victim was running at a distance of fifty meters, which does not preclude risk to the assailant. The Court cannot assume the appellant knew the victim was unarmed or would not offer resistance if caught. On Issue 3: The Court further held that treachery cannot be considered because it was not properly pleaded in the information regarding the specific count of the killing. Count No. 2 of the information used the word 'treasonably' to describe the killing of Nacario, which the Court interpreted as denoting the manner of committing treason under Article 114 of the RPC rather than 'treacherously' for the purpose of murder. Citing U. S. vs. Campo (23 Phil., 368), the Court reiterated that qualifying circumstances must be explicitly pleaded. The prosecution used the specific term 'treachery' in Count No. 4, proving that it knew how to distinguish the terms, and its failure to include 'treachery' in Count No. 2 prevents its application to the killing of Nacario.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that while the killing of Romualdo Nacario was proven, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not sufficiently established by the evidence. Consequently, the appellant could only be convicted of homicide, not murder or treason with murder, as the meeting appeared casual and the act of firing the shot might have been impulsive, lacking the elements of a deliberate plan or an attack made without risk to the assailant.