People v. Lansañgan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Agustin Lansañgan was charged with assassination for the killing of Marcelino Tipay, a 7-year-old child. The defendant had been cohabiting with the child's mother, Maria Bautista, but they had a quarrel, and the defendant threatened to kill her or her children. On December 6, 1913, while the deceased child and another sibling were playing, the defendant induced the deceased to accompany him towards an estero. Later that evening, the child was found dead in the estero, with a dislocated cervical vertebra. The defendant was found leaving the estero with wet clothing up to his waist. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Tarlac found the defendant guilty of homicide and sentenced him to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with accessories, P1,000 indemnity, and costs. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The appellant contended that the evidence did not justify the lower court's conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of a child of tender years by an adult, under circumstances where the perpetrator incurs no risk, constitutes assassination due to treachery. Whether the evidence presented proves the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime of assassination.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, finding the defendant guilty of assassination. The Court sentenced the defendant to twenty years of cadena temporal, with accessories, P1,000 indemnity, and costs, applying the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) and the extenuating circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the killing of a child of tender years by an adult, under circumstances where the perpetrator incurs no risk, constitutes assassination due to treachery: The Court held that treachery exists when means are employed which insure the execution of the crime without danger to the perpetrator. Citing numerous decisions from the Supreme Court of Spain and its own jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that when an adult illegally attacks a child of tender years, the adult runs no risk of personal injury. Therefore, alevosia should be considered a qualifying circumstance, elevating the crime to assassination. In this case, the deceased was seven years old, and whatever method the defendant employed, it was done without any possibility of danger to himself from the child. On the issue of whether the evidence presented proves the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime of assassination: The Court found that the evidence sustained beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had threatened to kill Maria Bautista or her children, that he induced the deceased child to go with him towards the estero, and that he was found leaving the estero with wet clothing. The discovery of the child's body in the estero with a dislocated cervical vertebra, coupled with the defendant's prior threats and suspicious conduct, established his culpability. While the lower court found the crime to be homicide, the Supreme Court, upon review, qualified it as assassination due to the presence of treachery, considering the victim's tender age and the defendant's lack of risk. The Court also considered the defendant's ignorance as an extenuating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code, imposing the minimum penalty for assassination.
Main Doctrine
The killing of a child of tender years by an adult, employing means which insure the execution of the crime without danger to himself, constitutes assassination due to the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia).