People v. Mabubay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 9, 1988, in Barangay Bubog, Municipality of Numancia, Province of Aklan, Edwin Mabubay allegedly attacked and stabbed Dioleto Raz with a knife, inflicting a mortal wound that caused his death. The information charged Mabubay with murder, alleging treachery and evident premeditation. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, found Edwin Mabubay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity and costs. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant sought a review of the trial court's decision, arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder due to the absence of treachery, as the killing occurred after the victim allegedly called him "gago" for pouring out half of a glass of tuba offered to him.
Issue(s)
Whether treachery was present in the killing of Dioleto Raz. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct.
Ruling
The appealed decision is affirmed with modification as to the penalty. The accused is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In other respects, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the presence of treachery: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of treachery. The evidence showed that the accused-appellant approached the deceased from behind, suddenly placed his arm around the victim's neck, and then stabbed him. This manner of attack, characterized by suddenness and the victim's unawareness, deprived Dioleto Raz of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The means employed, attacking from behind and encircling the neck before stabbing, directly and specially insured the execution of the killing without risk to the assailant. The witness testimony corroborated that the victim was seated with his back to the provincial road when attacked, and that the accused came from behind. The accused's own testimony, describing him placing his arm around the victim's shoulder before stabbing, further supported the manner of attack from behind. The Court reiterated the definition of treachery, requiring both the employment of means to insure execution without risk to the offender and the conscious adoption of such means. The sudden and unexpected nature of the attack from behind, as described by witnesses and even implicitly by the accused, fulfilled these conditions, thus establishing treachery as a qualifying circumstance for murder. On the penalty imposed: The Court found the penalty imposed by the trial court to be incorrect. The trial court imposed thirty (30) years of reclusion perpetua. However, the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the imposable penalty should be taken from the next lower penalty, which is prision mayor in its maximum period (ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years). The maximum imposable penalty should be within the range of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, to twenty (20) years). Therefore, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Main Doctrine
Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make. The attack from behind, coupled with the suddenness and unexpectedness of the stabbing, deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself, thus establishing treachery.