People v. Leal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 23, 1966, at approximately 9:30 PM, Godofredo Nicolas and his brother Nari Nicolas were at a sari-sari store. Jose Cajeton, Jr., who had been manhandled by Nari Nicolas an hour earlier, arrived with appellant David Leal in a jeep. Cajeton boxed Nari, while Leal drew a dagger. Godofredo fled, and Leal gave chase. Godofredo slipped and fell approximately 40 to 50 meters from the jeep. While Godofredo was on the ground, Leal caught up and stabbed him in the left chest with a one-foot long dagger, causing a fatal perforation of the heart. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan found David Leal guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Godofredo Nicolas in the sum of P6,000. The Petition: David Leal appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether treachery attended the commission of the crime. Whether the crime committed was murder or homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of First Instance. It found that treachery was not present and that the crime committed was homicide, not murder. The appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 16 years of reclusion temporal, and the indemnity to the heirs was increased to P12,000.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of treachery: The Court held that treachery, as defined in Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, requires the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense of the victim. Furthermore, treachery must be present from the commencement of the attack. In this case, the chase was continuous, and the victim slipped and fell during the flight. The Court found no evidence that the appellant consciously adopted means, methods, or forms to specially insure the killing of the deceased from the beginning of the encounter. The act of chasing and stabbing the victim after he had fallen was a continuation of the initial assault, not a separate treacherous attack. Therefore, treachery was not present. On the crime committed: Since treachery was not proven as a qualifying circumstance, the crime committed was not murder but homicide. The Court applied Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes homicide with reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and finding no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 16 years of reclusion temporal. The indemnity to the heirs was increased to P12,000, consistent with the ruling in People vs. Pantoja.
Main Doctrine
Treachery requires that the means, methods, or forms employed by the offender tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make, and must be present from the commencement of the attack. A continuous chase, even if the victim falls, does not constitute treachery if the treacherous means were not consciously adopted from the beginning.