People v. Roman G.R. No. 198110

 

G.R. No. 198110              

July 31, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

WILSON ROMAN, Accused-Appellant.

Facts: 

At a wedding party, Vicente Indaya was hit on the head, nape, right shoulder, base of the nape, and right elbow before he fell on the ground and instantly died by the accused-appellant. The victim was seen lying on his stomach drenched in his own blood, while the accused-appellant was standing in front of him, holding a bolo.

In the accused-appellant’s defense, he on his way back home towing bamboos, when he met his close friend, Belbis, who cajoled him to come with him to a wedding party. At the wedding he saw the victim having a heated argument with his brother-in-law, Villaflor. He pacified the two and told Villaflor to leave. He and Balbis also had some alcoholic drinks. But the victim suddenly appeared and said, “"Son of a bitch, I’ll kill you! Why are you pacifying me? You are just like your friends." He stood up and turned to leave when he heard a woman say, "Wilson, you will be hacked!" When he turned his head, he saw the victim running towards him with a bolo. Seeing the impending attack, he moved back, making him lean on the fence, but still he was hit on his left hand at the back of his palm. While wrapping his palm with a towel, the victim hit him once again but he was able to dodge. He got mad and lost control of himself so he pulled his bolo from the scabbard and hacked the victim.

The RTC convicted him of murder which was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present?

Ruling:

Yes. Crime was qualified by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It takes place when the following elements concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed.

Vicente Indaya, while walking in the yard, was suddenly and repeatedly attacked with a bolo from behind. The victim, who was then unarmed and unsuspecting, was deprived of any real chance to mount a defense, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to accused-appellant. This is also buttressed by the fact that the wounds sustained by the victim were all located at the back. On this score, treachery is established.

At the time that the crime was about to be committed, the victim does not have the slightest idea of the impending danger to his person. He was not facing the accused-appellant and unarmed, hence, lacked the opportunity to avoid the attack, or at least put up a defense to mitigate the impact. On the one hand, the accused-appellant was armed and commenced his attack while behind the victim. The presence of treachery cannot be any clearer.