People v. Ramo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Nicomedes Ramo and his brother Rogelio were charged with murder. The information alleged that on May 22, 1970, Rogelio boxed the deceased Fernando Magsayo on the right ear, causing him to fall. While Magsayo was on the ground, Nicomedes stabbed him with a dagger ('ponial') in the right axilla, inflicting a fatal wound. Procedural History: The trial court found Nicomedes Ramo guilty of murder, attended by the aggravating circumstance of treachery and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Rogelio Ramo was convicted of less serious physical injuries and sentenced to imprisonment. The Petition: The appellants raised the issue of credibility of witnesses and Nicomedes Ramo assailed the finding of treachery. Rogelio Ramo disputed the penalty imposed upon him.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in its conclusion as to the presence of treachery in the commission of the offense. Whether the penalty imposed upon Rogelio Ramo for less serious physical injuries was excessive.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. Nicomedes Ramo was found guilty of homicide, mitigated by voluntary surrender, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. Rogelio Ramo was sentenced to two (2) months imprisonment for less serious physical injuries. The award for indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of treachery: The Court held that treachery requires two conditions: (1) the means, method, or manner of execution must ensure the offender's safety from any defensive or retaliatory act by the victim, and (2) such means, method, or manner must have been deliberately and consciously chosen. The Court found that Nicomedes Ramo launched his assault after seeing his brother Rogelio engaged in a fight with the deceased, acting on an instinctive impulse to join the fight. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that treachery could not be logically deduced because Nicomedes did not deliberate on a method of attack that would ensure the commission of the offense without risk to himself. Therefore, Nicomedes Ramo was guilty only of homicide, not murder. On the penalty for Rogelio Ramo: The Court found the penalty imposed by the trial court for less serious physical injuries to be erroneous. Under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code, less serious physical injuries are punishable by arresto mayor. The Court thus imposed a penalty of two (2) months imprisonment, which falls within the range of arresto mayor.
Main Doctrine
The suddenness of an attack does not per se constitute treachery; it must be shown that the aggressor consciously and deliberately adopted such a method of attack to ensure commission of the crime without risk to himself. When an accused acts on an instinctive impulse to join a fight already in progress, treachery cannot be deduced.