PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGAR GAYON Y FERRERAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Gayon

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Edgar Gayon y Ferreras, a criminal appeal from a conviction for Murder. The accused was charged with killing Leonora Givera by stabbing her in the evening of July 19, 2004, in Sulangan, Matnog, Sorsogon. The case matters because the Supreme Court, while affirming the killing and rejecting self-defense, struck down the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, and reduced the conviction from Murder to Homicide. It is a compact lesson on how qualifying circumstances must be proven, and on how the suddenness of an attack is not, by itself, treachery.

Procedural History

Edgar Gayon and his father Rodolfo Gayon were charged with Murder under an Information alleging conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. Both pleaded not guilty, and trial proceeded before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Irosin, Sorsogon. In its Decision dated October 4, 2012, the trial court convicted Edgar Gayon of Murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the heirs of Leonora Givera 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 75,000 pesos as moral damages. It acquitted Rodolfo Gayon for failure of the prosecution to establish sufficient evidence against him.

Edgar Gayon appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated December 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court, with the modification that all monetary awards would earn legal interest at six percent per annum from finality of the Decision until full payment. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal.

Facts

On the evening of July 19, 2004, at around 9:40 in the evening, Leyden Gayon was in her house in Sulangan, Matnog, Sorsogon, having a conversation with Leonora Givera. Leyden's husband is the first cousin of Rodolfo Gayon, and Edgar Gayon is Rodolfo's son. Leyden testified that she saw Edgar Gayon enter her house, sit on Leonora's lap, and suddenly stab Leonora several times. She even saw the knife embedded in Leonora's right shoulder. Leyden dragged Leonora inside the house, and Leonora told her that she was dying. Leyden also heard Edgar Gayon tell his father, "Papay we have no more problem because I killed your sister."

The defense told a different story. Rodolfo Gayon claimed he was not present at the time of the killing and learned of it from his wife and daughter the following morning. He said his wife and daughter-in-law had a previous altercation about chickens. For his part, Edgar Gayon claimed that when he arrived home from work his family was not there, and a certain Toti told him his family was absent because of a quarrel with Leonora at Leyden's house. Edgar then asked Leonora what his wife had done, and Leonora pointed a knife at him and said his wife kept fighting back. Edgar claimed he tried to resist the knife, saw Leyden's husband approaching with something to hit him, and pushed Leonora inside the house. He said he did not notice whether the knife caused any injury, and then left to look for his family.

The trial court gave credence to Leyden's eyewitness testimony, corroborated by the medical finding of the examining physician, and found treachery proven because of the suddenness of the attack. The Court of Appeals agreed, and added that the nature and number of wounds showed a determined aggression rather than self-defense.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Edgar Gayon for Murder.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not Edgar Gayon acted in self-defense.
• Whether or not the testimony of the eyewitness, Leyden Gayon, is credible.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes Murder as charged in the Information, provides:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

This is the provision under which the accused was charged, and the presence or absence of treachery and evident premeditation determines whether the killing is Murder or the lesser crime of Homicide.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes Homicide, provides:

Article 249. Homicide. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the provision the Court applies once treachery and evident premeditation are removed, and it fixes the penalty at reclusion temporal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the appeal is partly meritorious. The Court affirms the conviction, but for Homicide, not Murder. It begins from the settled rule that findings of fact of trial courts are generally accorded great weight, but an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review on questions of both fact and law.

On the second issue, the Court holds that qualifying circumstances must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself, that is, beyond reasonable doubt. Both lower courts found treachery only because of the suddenness of the attack. The Court rejects this. Mere suddenness is not enough. For treachery to exist, there must be a showing that the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted with a view to accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor. Here, there was no showing that Edgar carefully and deliberately planned the killing to ensure his safety and success. The victim was attacked in a place familiar to her and in the presence of other people related to her, who could have helped her repel the attack. The attack was also frontal, which, taken with the other circumstances, creates a reasonable doubt. Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.

On evident premeditation, the Court holds there is no basis for it. The elements are the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that he clung to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection. The prosecution's evidence was limited to what transpired in Leyden's house at 9:40 in the evening, and it presented no proof of when and how Edgar planned and prepared to kill Leonora. The mere fact that the accused was armed at the beginning of the altercation does not establish a deliberate plot.

On self-defense, the Court holds that Edgar failed to discharge his burden. Self-defense requires unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Without unlawful aggression, self-defense has no leg to stand on. Edgar's uncorroborated and self-serving claim that Leonora pointed a knife at him pales in comparison to Leyden's positive testimony, and the nature and number of wounds show a determined aggression rather than self-defense.

On credibility, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's appreciation of the evidence, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, since the trial court had the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of the witnesses during trial.

On the penalty, with the qualifying circumstances removed, the crime is Homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal, imposed in its medium period absent any modifying circumstance. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposes eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Following its ruling in People versus Jugueta, the Court fixes civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages at 50,000 pesos each.

Doctrine

First, qualifying circumstances must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself, that is, beyond reasonable doubt. Second, mere suddenness of an attack does not establish treachery. For treachery to exist, the means of execution must be shown to have been deliberately or consciously adopted with a view to accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor. Third, evident premeditation requires clear and positive proof of the time the accused determined to commit the crime, an overt act showing he clung to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time to allow reflection. Fourth, self-defense requires unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation; without unlawful aggression, it cannot be appreciated. These rules tie directly to Article 248, which lists treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying circumstances, and to Article 249, which applies when none of those circumstances attends the killing.

Disposition

The Court declared Edgar Gayon y Ferreras guilty of Homicide, not Murder, sentenced him to the indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered him to pay the heirs of Leonora Givera 50,000 pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages, with legal interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: suddenness alone is not treachery, because treachery requires a deliberate or conscious choice of means of execution that leaves the aggressor no risk. Examiners use this case to test the quantum of proof for qualifying circumstances and the reduction of Murder to Homicide when treachery and evident premeditation are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.