People v. Agacer G.R. No. 177751

 

G.R. No. 177751               

December 14, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.

FLORENCIO AGACER, EDDIE AGACER, ELYNOR AGACER, FRANKLIN AGACER and ERIC AGACER, Appellants.

Facts: 

Cesario, a farmer and owner of a rice field situated in Cagayan was clearing a section of his farm and preparing the beddings for the rice seedlings intended for the coming planting season. Farm laborers and his brothers were nearby in a separate section of the same rice field harvesting Cesario’s palay.

According Genesis and Roden, it was at that moment while Cesario was tending to his farm when appellants suddenly emerged from a nearby banana plantation and surrounded Cesario. Visibly intimidated, Cesario moved backwards and retreated to where the other farm laborers were working. However, Franklin set afire the rice straws that covered Cesario’s rice seedlings. This prompted Cesario to return to put out the fire and save his rice seedlings. At this point, two of the accused started throwing stones at Cesario and causing his retreat. One of the accused then signaled the victim to come closer. He obliged and when he was just around five meters away from the group, one of the accused suddenly pulled out a gun and hit the victim on his right chest. Another accused hit the victim with his bow and arrow but missed. The victim fell and appellants fled towards the irrigation canal, where another gunshot rang. Thereafter, a short firearm was thrown from where the appellants ran towards the direction of Cesario’s fallen body. Appellants then immediately left the scene of the crime onboard a hand tractor and a tricycle. The victim died.

During the autopsy, a total of eight entrance wounds were found, mostly on the chest of Cesario’s cadaver and fatal gunshot wounds were inflicted by the use of a firearm capable of discharging several slugs simultaneously.

On the appellants’ defense, they claimed that Florencio, one of the accused, only acted in self-defense and in defense of relatives. He claimed that Cesario attempted to prevent him from preparing the seed beds. When Florencio persisted and argued that he inherited the land from his father, Cesario departed through a cogonal area. One of the accused noticed that Cesario was holding an object suspecting it was a weapon, he shouted to the other accused to run away and they did. The victim then chased the accused who ran and jumped into the irrigation canal to hide in the tall cogon grasses. When he saw that the victim was already close, he grabbed the victim’s buckshot gun and successfully disarmed him. The victim drew another firearm and shot the accused several times. Hence, the accused also fired the gun he earlier grabbed from the victim and hit the latter. Finding out that he too was hit in the arm, he shouted to his nephews for help. They responded by taking him to a hospital for treatment. On April 16, 1998, he went to the police to surrender.

The RTC found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal,10 which was approved and was transferred to the CA. The CA reaffirmed RTC’s decision. Hence, this present appeal. 

Issue:

Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present?

Ruling:

Yes. "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make." Two conditions must concur for treachery to be appreciated. First, is the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Second, the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted."The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor."

In this case, Cesario could not have been aware that he would be surrounded, attacked and killed by the appellants who were all related to him. He could not have also been aware of the different attacks from his attackers. The mode of attack did not spring from the unexpected turn of events but was clearly thought of by the appellants. Hence, it no longer matters that the assault was frontal since its swiftness and unexpectedness deprived Cesario of a chance to repel it or offer any resistance in defense of his person. It is also immaterial who gave the fatal blow as the act of one is deemed the act of all.