THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDISON ARELLANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Arellano

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecute Edison Arellano for the killing of Andres Ventura. The accused was charged with murder under the Revised Penal Code, and the central question on appeal is whether the killing was attended by treachery, the circumstance that raises a killing from homicide to murder. The case matters for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of the two elements of treachery, and it shows how the Supreme Court weighs eyewitness identification against alibi and denial. It also gives a working model for computing loss of earning capacity in damages.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 19, tried the case. At arraignment, both accused, Edison Arellano and Romeo Tindenilla, pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution rested, the defense demurred to the evidence as to Tindenilla, and the prosecution concurred. The trial court then issued a partial decision acquitting Tindenilla, finding that the injury inflicted on the victim was the product of Arellano's sole initiative and that conspiracy was not proved. The trial court thereafter convicted Arellano of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages. Arellano appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors that the Court reduced to the single issue of the credibility of witnesses.

Facts

On the evening of July 25, 1993, at a sari-sari store beside the Victory Rice Mill in Cabatuan, Isabela, several workers were drinking beer. Among them were Roberto Morales, Antonio Cordova, Romeo Tindenilla, the security guard Edison Arellano, and the victim Andres Ventura. The storeowner asked Andres to gather the empty bottles. Romeo resented Andres reaching for the bottles in front of him, and a verbal tussle broke out. It escalated into a fistfight. Andres punched Romeo, and Romeo fell to the ground.

At that moment, Arellano came from behind Andres and stabbed him on the right side of the body with a pointed double-bladed instrument. Andres tried to chase Arellano but failed, and Arellano fled into the compound of the rice mill. Andres sat down, held his side, and cried for help. Morales, Cordova, and the others brought him to the Bucag Hospital, where he died about an hour later. The medical certificate, admitted without objection, showed a stab wound with massive internal bleeding and transection of the hepatic artery.

For his defense, Arellano interposed alibi and denial. He claimed he was elsewhere paying respects to a friend's dead grandfather and later returned to the rice mill, where he was arrested. The security guard Mario Guillermo testified that he heard the victim shouting that he was injured and saw Arellano entering the rice mill. Romeo Tindenilla testified that Arellano was no longer at the store when the fistfight began, but he admitted he was already unconscious when the stabbing occurred.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses over the defenses of alibi and denial.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing, raising it from homicide to murder.
• Whether or not the monetary awards, including loss of earning capacity, were properly computed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes murder, and the information charged the killing under it:

That on or about the 25th day of July, 1993, in the municipality of Cabatuan, province of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill suddenly and unexpectedly and without giving him chance to defend himself, assault, attack and stab with a pointed bladed instrument one Andres Ventura inflicting upon him a stab wound of the right side of the body, which directly caused his death.

Treachery is the circumstance that qualifies the killing to murder, and its presence or absence decides the offense.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes homicide, the crime the Court found was actually committed:

In the absence of any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is homicide which is penalized with reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.

This provision fixes the penalty once treachery is excluded.

Article 2206 of the Civil Code governs compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity:

In accordance with Article 2206 of the Civil Code, an award of compensatory damages representing Alfredo's loss of earning capacity is due the heirs of the victim.

This provision supports the award of damages for the victim's lost earnings.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court's assessment of credibility. The trial judge, who observed the witnesses' demeanor, was in a vantage position to determine who deserved credence. The claim that the eyewitnesses had been drinking did not destroy their credibility, because there was no proof that intoxication had so debilitated their senses as to negate their claim of having seen the attacker. Nor was any ill motive shown, so their testimonies were entitled to full faith and credit. Both Morales and Cordova categorically identified Arellano as the stabber. Positive identification, categorical and consistent, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving when unsubstantiated. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and must be rejected when identity is sufficiently and positively established. Guillermo's testimony, far from helping the accused, was consistent with the prosecution's account that Arellano fled into the rice mill after the stabbing. Tindenilla's testimony was of no moment because he was unconscious when the stabbing occurred.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General that treachery was not established, and convicted the accused only of homicide. The Court laid down the two conditions of treachery:

These conditions are: (1) the means, method and form of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) such means, method or form of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused.

The first condition was present, because the victim was attacked from behind while his attention was on the fallen Tindenilla. But the second, subjective condition was absent. There was no proof that the accused consciously adopted a mode of attack to facilitate the killing without risk to himself. The victim was not alone, and the probability of his companions pouncing on the accused was not remote. What appeared on record was that the accused acted on the spur of the moment upon seeing Tindenilla fallen. A killing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous.

On the third issue, the Court recomputed the damages. It applied the formula for life expectancy, two thirds multiplied by eighty minus the victim's age at death, giving forty-one years. It multiplied this by the victim's net earnings, taken as half of his annual wages, to arrive at loss of earning capacity. It also awarded civil indemnity and actual damages for funeral and medical expenses.

Doctrine

Treachery has two elements: the means, method, and form of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and such means, method, or form was deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused. The first element is objective; the second is subjective and requires proof that the accused consciously chose the mode of attack to facilitate the killing without risk to himself. A killing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous. Positive identification by credible eyewitnesses, categorical and consistent and without showing of ill motive, prevails over alibi and denial, and alibi is the weakest of all defenses. In the absence of a qualifying circumstance, the killing is homicide under Article 249, not murder under Article 248.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified it, finding Edison Arellano guilty only of homicide and imposing an indeterminate sentence, with damages recomputed in favor of the victim's heirs.

Remember This

Memorize the two elements of treachery, and remember that the second, the deliberate choice of the mode of attack, is what examiners test when the stabbing is sudden. This case is a favorite for distinguishing homicide from murder where the assault is impulsive, and for the formula on loss of earning capacity.