### Facts:
On the morning of January 11, 1997, at around 9:00 a.m., in Barangay Divisoria, Municipality of Dimasalang, Province of Masbate, Jessie Lacson and Edwin Velasco, while gathering shells by the seashore, decided to quench their thirst by getting young coconuts from a nearby fishpond owned by Cleto Cortes, where Eulogio Ignacio served as the caretaker. Jessie Lacson took one young coconut and walked towards a dike to break it open. Eulogio, emerging from his house within the fishpond, saw Jessie but did not see Edwin who was standing behind some coconut trees. Eulogio ordered Jessie to put down the coconut, and when Jessie complied, he shot Jessie with a homemade shotgun from a distance, hitting him in the chest and causing his death. Edwin witnessed the incident from a six-meter distance and fled to report to the barangay tanod, Carlito Alcover. Subsequently, Eulogio was apprehended and surrendered his shotgun to the authorities.
The prosecution charged Eulogio Ignacio with murder on February 28, 1997, and during arraignment on September 18, 1997, Eulogio pleaded not guilty. The RTC of Masbate (Branch 44) convicted Eulogio of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay the victim’s heirs P50,000.
### Issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Eulogio Ignacio of murder.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that treachery qualified the act to murder.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
### Court’s Decision:
**Evidence of Guilt:**
The Court found sufficient evidence confirming that Eulogio Ignacio had indeed shot Jessie Lacson. Eulogio admitted to doing so under the claim of defending property, suspecting that Jessie and his companion were stealing crabs.
**Issue 1: Conviction of Murder:**
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s conviction of murder. The evidence affirmed that Eulogio’s actions could not be justified as a defense of property since there was no proof of unlawful aggression from the victim.
**Issue 2: Treachery:**
The Court held that treachery was present. Eulogio’s approach involved a sudden and unexpected attack on an unarmed minor, ensuring no risk from any possible defense from the minor. Jessie was unarmed, had complied with the initial order, and was shot without any warning while being defenseless.
**Issue 3: Voluntary Surrender:**
The Court found that voluntary surrender was not applicable. Surrender was coerced by the presence and action of the barangay tanods, negating the conditions for it to be considered voluntary since Eulogio’s capture was imminent.
### Doctrine:
The doctrine elucidated in this case is that treachery is present when an accused delivers a sudden, unexpected, and deliberate attack on an unarmed and defenseless person, ensuring no risk to themselves. Additionally, voluntary surrender cannot be considered mitigating if the surrender is coerced or unavoidable due to the situation.
### Class Notes:
1. **Elements of Treachery:**
– Unexpected and sudden attack.
– The victim is unarmed and defenseless.
– No risk to the perpetrator.
Applicable Statute: Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code (RPC).
2. **Defense of Property Justification:**
– Requires proof of unlawful aggression.
– Must demonstrate necessity and reasonableness of means employed.
Applicable Statute: Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code.
3. **Voluntary Surrender as a Mitigating Circumstance:**
– Offender not arrested prior.
– Surrender to authority (or agent).
– Surrender must be voluntary.
Applicable Statute: Article 13(7), Revised Penal Code.
### Historical Background:
The case is set against the backdrop of Philippine jurisprudence where the Supreme Court reaffirms strict standards for qualifying circumstances, ensuring a fair trial process by scrutinizing evidence thoroughly even when faced with an apparent defense. The lingering social issue of vigilantism and justification of extreme measures under defense of property rights also comes into play, reflecting the Court’s stance on the sanctity of life and proper conduct within the legal framework.
Leave a Reply