People v. Aseniero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Romeo Aseniero (Romeo) was charged with Murder for allegedly hacking Dominador Ranes (Dominador) with a long bolo on August 24, 2003, in Bato, Leyte, employing treachery and evident premeditation, causing Dominador's death. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Romeo guilty of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the civil liability. Romeo appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Romeo argued that the CA erred in affirming his conviction for Murder, contending that the prosecution failed to prove treachery beyond reasonable doubt and that the RTC misappreciated the evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Romeo's conviction for Murder despite the prosecution's alleged failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the presence or absence of treachery. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was sufficiently proven, and the determination of the proper penalty and damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal, declaring accused-appellant Romeo Aseniero guilty of Homicide, not Murder. He was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. He was ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of treachery: The Court ruled in favor of Romeo, finding that treachery was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of defense witnesses Loreto Gomez Papa and Gregorio Pol indicated that the attack was preceded by an altercation, with the victim Dominador kicking Romeo first. This should prevail over the prosecution witness Analyn Gomez's testimony that Romeo immediately stabbed the victim, especially since prosecution witness Roel Pilo did not see how the attack began. The Court reiterated that treachery requires the employment of means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant, and that there is no treachery if the attack is preceded by an altercation or if the victim is aware of the hostility. Even Analyn's testimony that Romeo pushed her aside before attacking the victim should have alerted Dominador to an impending attack. Furthermore, the victim was able to run and had his own weapon, indicating he was not deprived of any chance to defend himself until he stumbled. The Court cited People v. Dela Cruz where it was held that treachery cannot be appreciated if the victim was forewarned and could have escaped. With the removal of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime was correctly classified as Homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the RPC. On the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the proper penalty and damages: The Court found that the requisites for voluntary surrender were sufficiently proven. SPO3 Wilfreda Vargas testified that Romeo surrendered at the Matalom Police Station on August 24, 2003, which was corroborated by Analyn and Roel. The Court reiterated that for voluntary surrender to mitigate penal liability, the accused must not have been actually arrested, must surrender to a person in authority or their agent, and the surrender must be voluntary. Since this mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the felony, Article 64(2) of the Revised Penal Code mandates that the penalty be imposed in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty was set at an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In line with People v. Jugueta, the damages were modified to P50,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages, with legal interest.
Main Doctrine
The qualifying circumstance of treachery is not present when the attack is preceded by an altercation or when the victim is aware of the assailant's hostility, as the element of surprise and lack of opportunity to defend are negated. Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance that should be considered in the imposition of penalty.