Treachery Must Be Present at the Inception of an Attack to Qualify a Killing as Murder

G.R. No. 254881, October 23, 2023

Imagine a sudden attack – a moment of chaos where the line between a simple fight and a capital crime blurs. In the Philippines, the presence of “treachery” can elevate a killing to murder, carrying severe penalties. But what exactly constitutes treachery, and when does it apply? This question was at the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision in People of the Philippines vs. Rafael Rey Malate, clarifying the circumstances under which treachery can be considered in a homicide case.

The case involves Rafael Rey Malate, who was initially convicted of murder due to treachery for hacking Charlito Manla after a drinking session argument. The Supreme Court, however, re-evaluated the circumstances, providing crucial insights into the application of treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

Legal Context: Understanding Treachery and Self-Defense

In Philippine law, murder is defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as the unlawful killing of a person, qualified by circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. Treachery (alevosia) is defined in Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code as employing means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make.

To appreciate treachery, two conditions must exist: (1) the victim was in no position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the means to ensure the execution of the crime. The essence is a sudden, unexpected attack that renders the victim defenseless.

On the other hand, self-defense, as outlined in Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, is a justifying circumstance that exempts an individual from criminal liability if the following elements 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.

Unlawful aggression is the most crucial element. Without it, self-defense cannot be claimed. It requires an actual, imminent, and unlawful attack that endangers one’s life or safety.

For example, imagine a scenario where Person A is verbally threatening Person B, but makes no move to physically harm them. If Person B suddenly pulls out a weapon and attacks Person A, self-defense would likely not be applicable because there was no imminent unlawful aggression from Person A.

Case Breakdown: A Drinking Session Turns Deadly

The story unfolds on November 24, 2010, when Rafael, Lito, and Ricardo were having a drinking session. Charlito joined, leading to an argument with Lito. After the squabble was pacified, Charlito approached Rafael to explain that he had no grudge against him. However, Rafael grabbed a bolo, prompting Ricardo to shout a warning to Charlito. Rafael chased and hacked Charlito, leading to his death.

Rafael voluntarily surrendered and claimed self-defense, stating that Charlito was aggressive and attempted to draw something from his waist. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) found him guilty of murder, citing treachery due to the suddenness of the attack.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the lower courts’ conclusion on treachery. The Court emphasized that:

“One continuous attack… cannot be broken up into two or more parts and made to constitute separate, distinct, and independent attacks so that treachery may be injected therein and considered as a qualifying or aggravating circumstance.“

The Supreme Court also stated that:

“[T]reachery must be present at the inception of an attack to qualify a killing to murder. It further emphasized that a treacherous act that happens during an attack or subsequent to it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance.“

The procedural journey of the case involved the following steps:

• Rafael was charged with murder in the RTC.
• He pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense.
• The RTC found him guilty of murder.
• Rafael appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications to the damages awarded.
• Rafael then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reclassified the crime as homicide, finding that treachery was not present at the start of the attack. The court considered that Charlito was with companions, and Rafael’s choice of weapon was incidental. Furthermore, Charlito’s act of running away after Ricardo’s warning showed he was not completely unaware of the danger.

Practical Implications: What This Means for Future Cases

This case underscores the importance of establishing treachery at the very beginning of an attack. It clarifies that a continuous assault cannot be divided into separate parts to retroactively apply treachery. This ruling has significant implications for criminal law, particularly in cases involving sudden altercations that escalate to homicide.

For legal practitioners, this means a more rigorous examination of the sequence of events is necessary to determine if treachery was present from the outset. Defense lawyers can use this ruling to argue against the application of treachery in cases where the attack was a continuation of an initial confrontation.

Key Lessons:

• Treachery must be present at the inception of the attack.
• A continuous attack cannot be broken into parts to inject treachery.
• The suddenness of an attack alone does not equate to treachery; deliberate planning must be shown.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the difference between murder and homicide?

A: Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with qualifying circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. Homicide is the unlawful killing of another person without these qualifying circumstances.

Q: What is treachery in legal terms?

A: Treachery (alevosia) involves employing means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make.

Q: How does self-defense work in the Philippines?

A: Self-defense is a justifying circumstance that requires unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation from the person defending themselves. The most important element is unlawful aggression.

Q: What happens if treachery is not proven in a murder case?

A: If treachery is not proven, the charge may be reduced to homicide, which carries a lighter penalty.

Q: Can a sudden attack always be considered treachery?

A: No, the suddenness of an attack alone is not sufficient to establish treachery. There must be a showing that the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the accused with a view of accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor.

Q: What is the significance of voluntary surrender in a criminal case?

A: Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance that can lead to a lighter penalty. It shows that the accused acknowledged their crime to the authorities.

Q: What are the penalties for homicide in the Philippines?

A: Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, which ranges from 12 years and one day to 20 years. The specific term depends on mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

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