People v. Paraiso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Benito Paraiso, Isidoro Delin, and Clemente Delin were accused of murder. The complaint alleged that on or about May 24, 1908, in Barili, Cebu, the defendants, with treachery and known premeditation, wounded Severino Manigos with bolos, causing his instantaneous death. Marcos Campaña testified that he saw the three accused approach the elderly Severino Manigos, who was using a cane. Benito Paraiso declared, "You are my enemy," and struck Manigos with a bolo. Isidoro Delin then struck Manigos with the same weapon. Manigos fell and died immediately. Claro Ababa corroborated this testimony, stating the killing occurred around 10 p.m. and that the accused struck Manigos twice with bolos, disemboweling him with one of the wounds. The accused, Clemente Delin and Isidoro Delin, testified they were not present and knew nothing of the killing. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cebu found Benito Paraiso and Isidoro Delin guilty as principals of homicide, sentencing them to 17 years, 4 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal. Clemente Delin was sentenced to 8 years of prision mayor as an accomplice. They were ordered to indemnify the family of the deceased jointly and severally in the sum of P500 and to pay costs. The Petition: The defendants appealed the sentence. However, Clemente Delin and Isidoro Delin withdrew their appeals and served their sentences. Benito Paraiso pursued his appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in the killing of Severino Manigos. Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was present.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance was reversed. Benito Paraiso was found guilty of murder and sentenced to cadena perpetua (life imprisonment), to the accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally in the sum of P1,000, and to pay one-third of the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in the killing of Severino Manigos: The Court held that treachery was clearly established. The evidence showed that the defendants, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the deceased, a defenseless old man, suddenly and without warning. The attack resulted in the instantaneous death of Manigos, affording him no opportunity to defend himself or escape. The means employed by the culprits directly and specially insured the commission of the crime without risk to themselves from any defense the injured party might have made. The Court cited Article 10, No. 2 of the Penal Code, defining treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms tending to insure the commission of the crime without risk to the offender arising from the defense of the victim. The fact that the deceased had a cane was not considered a means of defense, as it was necessary for him to use it for walking and he was not expecting an attack. On Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was present: The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity could not be applied. It was not shown that the defendants intentionally sought the cover of darkness to commit the murder. The evidence indicated they were walking along the street carrying a light that made them easily recognizable to people nearby. The Court cited U.S. v. Ramos, 2 Phil. Rep., 434, for the principle that nocturnity is aggravating only when the offender intentionally seeks the darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Main Doctrine
Treachery is present when the culprit commits any crime against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure it without risk of the person of the criminal arising from the defense the injured party might make. The circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered aggravating if it has not been shown that the defendants intentionally sought the cover of darkness for the purpose of committing the crime.