Treachery Absorbs Abuse of Superior Strength: A Key Distinction in Philippine Murder Cases

G.R. No. 247654, June 14, 2021

Imagine a scenario where a group of individuals, armed and acting in concert, attack an unsuspecting victim. The suddenness and brutality of the assault leave the victim with no chance to defend themselves. This is the essence of treachery, a qualifying circumstance that elevates a killing to the crime of murder under Philippine law. But what happens when the attackers also possess superior strength? Does this constitute a separate aggravating circumstance, or is it absorbed by treachery? This case, People of the Philippines vs. Sadick Roaring, delves into this critical distinction, clarifying the interplay between treachery and abuse of superior strength in determining criminal liability.

The case revolves around the brutal killing of two individuals and the near-fatal assault of another. The accused, Sadick Roaring and Beltran Rellama, were convicted of murder and frustrated murder. The central legal question was whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were correctly appreciated by the lower courts. This decision offers valuable insights into how Philippine courts analyze intent, self-defense claims, and the application of aggravating circumstances in criminal cases.

Legal Context: Murder, Treachery, and Self-Defense in the Philippines

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person, qualified by circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. Treachery (alevosia) is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. This element is crucial in distinguishing murder from homicide.

Self-defense, as provided under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, is a valid defense if the following requisites are present: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The burden of proof rests upon the accused to establish these elements clearly and convincingly. Failure to prove even one element negates the defense.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that denial is an intrinsically weak defense, especially when faced with positive identification by credible witnesses. As stated in the decision, “Denial is an intrinsically weak defense that further crumbles when it comes face-to-face with the positive identification and straightforward narration of the prosecution witness.”

For example, imagine a scenario where a person is suddenly attacked from behind while walking down the street. If the attacker uses a weapon and inflicts fatal injuries, this would likely be considered murder qualified by treachery. On the other hand, if the victim initiated the altercation and the attacker responded with reasonable force to defend themselves, self-defense might be a valid argument.

Case Breakdown: The Brutal Events in Barangay Tobgon

The events unfolded on May 1, 2014, in Sitio Quinimbalan, Barangay Tobgon, Oas, Albay. Virginia Rectin was pounding palay when her nephews Sadick and Sadjade, along with Beltran Rellama and his son Brexton, arrived armed with bolos. Sadick also carried a firearm. The situation quickly escalated as Sadick fired shots at Virginia’s son, Jobert, before turning his attention to Virginia’s husband, Fabian Requejo Rectin, Jr.

• Sadick struck Fabian Jr. unconscious with a mortar.
• The group then hacked Fabian Jr. to death.
• They proceeded to attack Virginia’s son, Fabian Renigen Rectin III, also hacking him to death.
• Finally, they assaulted Virginia, who managed to escape with severe injuries.

During the trial, Sadick claimed self-defense, alleging that Fabian Jr. shot him first. However, the court found his version of events unconvincing. Beltran, on the other hand, denied any involvement in the killings.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Sadick and Beltran guilty of two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, but modified the award of damages. The case then reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Virginia, who positively identified the accused as the perpetrators. As the Court noted, “Virginia positively identified the accused as the malefactors.”

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the treacherous nature of the attack, stating, “Here, there is treachery because the assailants joined together in hacking the deceased and private complainant Virginia. In fact, even before attacking Fabian Jr., Sadick already rendered him unconscious.”

Practical Implications: Lessons for Criminal Defense and Prosecution

This case underscores the importance of establishing treachery beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases. It also clarifies that abuse of superior strength is generally absorbed by treachery when the attackers deliberately exploit their advantage to ensure the commission of the crime.

For individuals facing criminal charges, this ruling highlights the difficulty of successfully invoking self-defense, especially when contradicted by credible eyewitness testimony. It emphasizes the need for a strong and well-corroborated defense strategy.

For prosecutors, it serves as a reminder to focus on proving treachery as the qualifying circumstance in cases involving group attacks, rather than relying on abuse of superior strength as a separate aggravating circumstance.

Key Lessons

• Treachery is a key qualifying circumstance in murder cases, requiring proof that the attack was sudden, unexpected, and without warning.
• Abuse of superior strength is generally absorbed by treachery when the attackers deliberately exploit their advantage.
• Self-defense requires proof of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity, and lack of sufficient provocation.
• Denial is a weak defense, especially when contradicted by positive identification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between murder and homicide?

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person with qualifying circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person without any qualifying circumstances.

What is treachery (alevosia)?

Treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

What is abuse of superior strength?

Abuse of superior strength is present when the offender takes advantage of his superior strength to commit the crime.

When can self-defense be invoked?

Self-defense can be invoked when there is unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

What are the penalties for murder and frustrated murder?

Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Frustrated murder is punishable by a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed for consummated murder.

What is the significance of positive identification in criminal cases?

Positive identification by credible witnesses is a strong piece of evidence that can outweigh a defendant’s denial or alibi.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.