People v. Almosara

 

People v. Almosara

G.R. No. 223512

July 24, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted appellant for the crime of murder. On December 6, 2000, siblings Gregorio and Marife Cabintoy were inside their residence at Sitio Quarry in Antipolo City.6 Right outside, their father Arnulfo Cabintoy was drinking with appellant Antonio, Anthony, Rodolfo (Adolfo), and Ronnie, all surnamed Almosara. After the drinking spree, Arnulfo advised appellant to go to sleep. Appellant irritably engaged in a heated exchange with Arnulfo. Shortly after, appellant and his relatives left. Suspecting that the Almosaras might return and retaliate, Arnulfo thought of his son who was then in the basketball court. He asked his wife Maria to fetch their son. Not long after, the Almosaras, now armed with bolos, had returned. At that point, Arnulfo was gathering stones he thought of using to defend himself and his family should the Almosaras be back. After a while, the Almosaras came back. For his part, appellant went straight to and pinned down Arnulfo and right then and there repeatedly stabbed Arnulfo. While Arnulfo was already lying prostrate on the ground, Anthony joined in and stabbed Arnulfo once in the stomach. Ronnie and Adolfo also joined in and stabbed Arnulfo a total of six (6) times in the back. Thereafter, the Almosaras ran away. Meanwhile, Maria had returned from the basketball court and saw many people gathering around their house. Some restrained her from getting inside. Then she saw her husband lying face down on the ground. He was full of blood. She heard people talking that the persons responsible were her husband's drinking buddies.  Wilfredo Almazen who lived nearby saw appellant, Adolfo, and another person passing by the road fronting his house. The three (3) were wearing bloodied clothes and holding bolos. Shortly after, Maria came to him asking for his help as barangay chairman for the arrest of the Almosaras. He readily obliged. He first went to Arnulfo's house where he saw Arnulfo's lifeless body. Then he went to chase appellant who was already fleeing at that time. He was able to catch appellant whom he immediately brought to the police headquarters. SPOl Felipe Matias, on the other hand, pursued and also succeeded in getting hold of Adolfo.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC

HELD:

                No. Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC defines· treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery hinges on the aggressor’s attack sans any warning, done in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.  Here, appellant, without any warning, barged into the victim’s premises, went straight to pin him down to the ground, and repeatedly stabbed him. Appellant continued pinning Arnulfo down to allow his other relatives who had joined in to freely take turns in stabbing the helpless victim.