Luces v. People G.R. No. 149492

G.R. No. 149492

January 20, 2003

JOEL LUCES, Petitioner, 

V.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts: 

Joel was charged with murder. Dante, Nelson, and Clemente were on their way to the house of DIdoy when they met Joel who collared Clemente, saying, "Get it if you will not get it tonight, I will kill you." He then stabbed Clemente on the chest with a "Batangueño" knife. The place was illuminated by a street light 3 to 4 arm’s length away from the petitioner, enabling Dante to easily recognize the latter who happened to be his barangay mate. The victim was rushed to the hospital while the petitioner fled from the crime scene. The victim died due to the wound.

The defense said that he was in San Jose and went home with his wife and the following day, his friend told him that he was a suspect for the death of Clemente. For fear that he might be incarcerated, he went into hiding, but his mother convinced him to surrender to the police station

Dante and Nelson executed a sworn statement identifying the petitioner as the culprit. On cross-examination, they were confronted with an affidavit of resistance that the person who stabbed the victim to his death was not Joel and might have been another person because it was dark. The atty also claimed that she did not explain the contents of the affidavit to the affiants inasmuch as the same is no longer her duty.

The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the crime of homicide without aggravating or mitigating circumstances. On appeal, his penalty was modified but dissatisfied, he filed an instant petition.

Issue: 

Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present?

Ruling:

No. Regarding the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly disregarded the attendance thereof in the instant case. Treachery (alevosia) is present when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods, and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.

 In the case at bar, the victim was not deprived of a real chance to defend himself. Note that the attack in the instant case was frontal and that the victim sustained a defensive wound on his left palm. Moreover, the presence of the victim’s companions, Dante Reginio and Nelson Magbanua, reveals that the victim was not completely helpless. Neither was there sufficient evidence to establish that appellant consciously adopted the mode of attack. The meeting between the victim and the petitioner was a casual encounter. Absent evidence showing that petitioner deliberately planned or adopted the mode of execution of the offense, treachery cannot be appreciated.