TREACHERY AS QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MURDER

People of the Philippines vs. Ardin Cuesta Cadampog

G.R. No. 218244, June 13, 2018

Martires, J.
<space>
DOCTRINE:

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor
on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself,
thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without the
slightest provocation on the part of the victim.

<space>

FACTS:

This case is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Cebu
City, in finding the accused-appellant Ardin Cuesta Cadampog guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crim of murder.

Based on the information filed by the Prosecutor’s Office, Ardin was charged with the
crim of murder based on the accusations that on or about October 31, 2008, said accused,
armed with a handgun, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery, did then and there shoot
Florencio Leonor Napoles, hitting the latter on his trunk, which caused his death.

The RTC ruled in favour of the prosecution. The trial court gave credence to Alicia's
positive identification of Ardin as the person responsible for the death of Florencio. It found
worthy of belief Alicia's testimony that she saw Ardin running away from the crime scene
with a gun; and that she was familiar with Ardin's build and height. Furthermore, it
emphasized that prosecution witnesses Mark and Margie corroborated Alicia's description
of the assailant's outfit on the night Florencio died. Unconvinced, Ardin filed an appeal before
the CA. The appellate court affirmed with modification the RTC ruling. It held that Alicia's
positive and categorical testimony sufficiently established her identification of Ardin as the
one who shot Florencio. The CA also upheld the RTC's appreciation of the qualifying
aggravating circumstance of treachery. It observed that the killing was carried out in a
manner that rendered the victim defenseless and unable to retaliate.

<space>
ISSUE:

Whether or not Ardin is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

<space>

RULING:

YES. After a careful evaluation of the records, the Court is convinced that Alicia
positively identified Ardin as the perpetrator. Additionally, two other disinterested witnesses,
Mark and Margie, corroborated Alicia's description of the assailant's attire. Alicia recounted
that Ardin was wearing a dark jacket, short pants, and a bullcap. This matched Mark and
Margie's description of Ardin's attire when they saw the latter on the night Florencio was killed.

Ardin failed to show that the prosecution witnesses were prompted by any ill motive to
falsely testify or accuse him of so grave a crime as murder. Besides, as widow of the victim, it is
consistent with reason that Alicia would desire punishment for the real perpetrator of the
crime. It is unnatural for a victim's relative interested in vindicating the crime to accuse
somebody other than the real culprit. Human nature tells us that the aggrieved relatives would
want the real killer punished for their loss and would not accept a mere scapegoat to take the
rap for the real malefactor. Concomitantly, the Court adheres to the established rule that, in the
absence of any evidence showing reason or motive for witnesses to perjure, their testimony and
identification of the assailant should be given full faith and credit.

Both the RTC and the CA found that the killing was attended by treachery. There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the
execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on
an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby
ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without the slightest provocation on
the part of the victim.

There is no doubt that the act of Ardin in shooting the victim through the bamboo slats
qualifies the crime with alevosia. Florencio was having supper when he was shot. He had no
suspicion that he was to be assaulted; and the sudden, swift attack gave him no opportunity to
defend himself. Therefore, this Court agrees with the tribunals a quo that the crime committed
was murder.