Case Digest: People of the Philippines vs. Abadies

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BONIFACIO ABADIES

G.R. No.  135975                                    14 November 2002

Ynares-Santiago, J.

DOCTRINE: 

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

FACTS:

At the 2:00 am of 25 December 1995, Cecilio Roldan, his wife, Cynthia, their son, Ronald, and a neighbour, Salve Aligway, were celebrating Christmas Eve at the balcony of their house in Ormoc City.  Cynthia saw Bonifacio Abadies, her husband’s uncle, approach Cecilia from behind.  Without warning, Abadies shot Cecilia with an 8-inch firearm. Cecilia was hit on the upper back and slumped to the floor. Jose Roldan, Cecilio’s brother, heard the gunshot and saw Abadies run toward his house while carrying a gun.  As he had heard Abadies threaten to kill Cecilio the day before, he rushed to his brother’s house.  According to Cynthia, Abadies had a grudge against her husband because he was unable to give him the additional amount of P10,000.00 for the lease of a rice land for the month of December 1995.

To his defense, Abadies claimed that although he did shoot Cecilio, it was accidental. Cecilio, Abadies, and the latter’s sons were drinking tuba and eating chicken to celebrate Christmas eve. Cecilio went to his bedroom and emerged with a gun. Upon warning of his son, Abadies grabbed hold of Cecilio’s hand, and during the struggle, twisted Cecilio’s hand to his back. That was when the gun suddenly went off

ISSUE:

Whether of not there exists the aggravating circumstance of treachery.

RULING:

No. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part.  In the case at bar, Cecilio Roldan was in the comforts of his home. He was eating, drinking and thoroughly engrossed in the gaiety of the yuletide season, while engaged in light banter with his wife and a neighbor. Suddenly and without warning, he was shot from behind by accused-appellant, his uncle. As in the recent case of People v. Herrera, accused-appellant suddenly positioned himself at the back of the unsuspecting victim, pointed his gun at him and, without any warning, promptly delivered the fatal shot. The victim was unaware of the attempt on his life and the danger that lurked behind him. There was no way the victim could have defended himself, taken flight or avoided the assault. Thus, the attendance of treachery qualified the killing to Murder.

Case Digest: People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido Mara y Bolaqueña alias “Loloy”

G.R. No. 184050                08 May 2009                       

Ponente: Velasco, JR, J.

FACTS:

In the evening of the 27 February 1999, Marcelino Balos held a party at his house in Bukidnon.  As per the host, while seated at the table, the appellant suddenly hacked the victim, Gaudencio Perater, on the right side of his neck with a bolo.  According to Marcelino’s nephew, there were no words exchanged between the victim and the accused prior to the attack.

The appellant’s version states that Gaudencio was drinking with Marcelino and his nephew when the accused asked where his brother is.  Gaudencio insulted the appellant’s brother and where a fight ensued.  Upon being warned that Gaudencio was about to stab him, the appellant hit the victim’s neck in self-defense.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated; and
2. Whether the accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense should be appreciated.

RULING:

1.   Considering the sudden manner of the attack which was done in a party, leaving the victim’s guard down and defenseless, and the lack of provocation from the victim as testified by witnesses, the qualifying circumstance of treachery is to be appreciated.  The crime therefore is murder under paragraph 1 of Article 248 of the RPC.
2. For self-defense to occur, the defense must prove that there was (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation from the person claiming self-defense.  The first of these elements is required, and as there was only the appellant’s testimony that the victim was about to stab him as opposed to the testimonies by witnesses, it was found that the latter’s testimonies were more credible than that of the accused – that there was no attack coming from the victim’s end. Unlawful aggression is absent; thus, the accused-appellant’s claim for self-defense fails.