People of the Philippines vs. Rafael Rey Malate

Treachery cannot be appreciated when the attack was a spontaneous continuation of an altercation and the accused did not consciously and deliberately adopt a treacherous mode of attack. A single and continuous attack cannot be divided into stages to make it appear that treachery was involved; treachery must be present at the inception of the attack to qualify a killing to murder.

Rafael Rey Malate was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court for the death of Charlito Manla, which occurred on November 24, 2010, in Mahaplag, Leyte. The Information alleged that the killing was committed "with treachery" but did not describe the specific acts constituting the qualifying circumstance. The accused pleaded not guilty and invoked self-defense.

On November 24, 2010, at around 7:00 p.m., Rafael Rey Malate, Lito Jerdelis, and Ricardo Sandoval were having a drinking session in Mahaplag, Leyte. Charlito Manla joined the group but got into an argument with Lito. Rafael and Ricardo pacified the squabble and went back to their seats. Charlito then approached Rafael and explained that he had no grudge against him. However, Rafael grabbed a bolo from the doorframe. Ricardo shouted at Charlito to run. Rafael chased Charlito and hacked him at his back. Charlito fell to the ground. Gilda Quizon saw Charlito lying on the middle of the road and yelled at Rafael to stop the assault, but Rafael hacked Charlito again on the head, resulting in his death.

After three days, Rafael voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. The autopsy report revealed that Charlito died of acute blood loss secondary to multiple hack wounds. Rafael was charged with murder committed with treachery. He pleaded not guilty and contended that he acted in self-defense, narrating that Charlito was already aggressive when he joined the drinking session, challenged them to a fight, and tried to draw something from his waist, but Rafael could not see what it was because of the dark. Allegedly to defend himself, Rafael grabbed his bolo from the doorframe and hacked Charlito until he was dead.

The RTC found Rafael guilty of murder qualified by treachery since he delivered the first hacking blow on Charlito's back without any warning, and ruled out self-defense for failure to prove unlawful aggression. On appeal, Rafael argued that the prosecution failed to allege the specific facts constituting treachery and to prove the essential elements of murder. The Office of the Solicitor General countered that treachery qualified the killing to murder because the weapon used, coupled with the location and number of Charlito's wounds, showed Rafael's clear intent to kill the unsuspecting victim. The CA affirmed the conviction, holding that the Information sufficiently informed Rafael of the nature and cause of the accusation, that the prosecution proved treachery considering the sudden and unexpected attack, and that self-defense was not established absent proof of unlawful aggression.

• Insufficiency of the Information: Rafael argued that the prosecution failed to allege the specific facts constituting the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery, which deprived him of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Failure to Prove Murder: Rafael argued that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of murder, including the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
• Self-Defense: Rafael contended that he acted in self-defense, claiming that Charlito was aggressive, challenged them to a fight, and tried to draw something from his waist, prompting Rafael to grab his bolo to defend himself.

• Treachery Proven: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that treachery qualified the killing to murder because the weapon used, coupled with the location and number of Charlito's wounds, showed Rafael's clear intent to kill the unsuspecting victim.
• Sufficiency of Information: The OSG maintained that the Information sufficiently informed Rafael of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

• Self-Defense: Whether Rafael's claim of self-defense was established, specifically whether there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the Information's failure to allege the ultimate facts constituting treachery deprived Rafael of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and whether he waived this defect.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing, qualifying it to murder.

• Self-Defense: No. Self-defense was not established because there was no actual or imminent unlawful aggression on the part of Charlito. Mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not unlawful aggression, and Rafael's belief that Charlito was about to attack was uncertain, premature, and speculative.
• Sufficiency of the Information: The Information was defective for failing to allege the ultimate facts constituting treachery, but Rafael waived this defect by not questioning it through a motion to quash or bill of particulars during trial, raising it only on appeal.
• Treachery: No. Treachery did not attend the killing. The attack was spontaneous and a continuation of a prior altercation; Rafael's choice of weapon was purely incidental, and the presence of other people who could help the victim repel the attack negates the conscious adoption of a treacherous mode of attack.

• Self-Defense: The Court stressed that the admission of self-defense frees the prosecution from proving the crime and shifts the burden to the accused to prove justification. The elements of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element; without it, the defense is unavailing. Here, the records did not show that Charlito used actual physical force or a weapon that placed Rafael's life or limb in danger. There was no offensive or positively strong impending attack. Rafael admitted he did not see what Charlito was trying to draw from his waist. After the squabble was pacified, Charlito merely approached Rafael and told him there was no personal grudge. Thus, Rafael had no basis for pleading self-defense.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Citing People vs. Solar, the Court held that it is insufficient for prosecutors to indicate in the Information that the act was done "with treachery" without specifically describing the acts constituting the circumstance. However, in Solar, the accused was deemed to have waived any objection for failure to question the defect through a motion to quash or bill of particulars. Here, Rafael did not question the insufficiency during trial and only raised it on appeal, so treachery could be appreciated against him if proven during trial.

• Treachery: Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender. Two requirements must be established: (1) the victim was in no position to defend himself when attacked, and (2) the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the methods, means, or form of attack. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack sans the slightest provocation. However, mere suddenness of the attack is not sufficient; there must be a showing that the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. Here, Charlito was with Ricardo and Lito when the attack happened, making external help easily available. Had Rafael deliberately intended no risk, he would have chosen another time and place. His choice of weapon was purely incidental—he just grabbed a bolo. The entire incident happened in a matter of minutes, and Rafael had no time to reflect on the mode of attack. Charlito ran as soon as he heard Ricardo's warning. Rafael's conduct of hacking Charlito at the back and on the head was spontaneous and a continuation of an attack which did not commence with treachery. Citing People vs. Cañete and People vs. Canillo, the Court reiterated that treachery must be present at the inception of an attack; a single continuous attack cannot be broken into parts to inject treachery. Thus, Rafael was liable only for homicide.

• Treachery must be present at the inception of the attack — A single and continuous attack cannot be divided into stages to make it appear that treachery was involved. Treachery cannot happen midstream of an attack. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Rafael's hacking of Charlito was a spontaneous continuation of an altercation, not a treacherous attack from its inception.

• Waiver of defective allegation of qualifying circumstance — Under People vs. Solar, an Information alleging a qualifying or aggravating circumstance must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance; otherwise, it may be subject to a motion to quash or bill of particulars. Failure of the accused to avail of these remedies constitutes a waiver of the right to question the defective statement, and the circumstance may be appreciated against the accused if proven during trial.

• Self-defense requires unlawful aggression — Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense. For unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to one's life or personal safety. Mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not unlawful aggression. A belief that the victim was about to attack, which is uncertain, premature, and speculative, does not establish unlawful aggression.

• Service of sentence extinguishes criminal liability — Under Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by service of the sentence. The policy is to release detainees who have been imprisoned for a period equivalent to or longer than the maximum penalty, consistent with the Nelson Mandela Rules on the reintegration of prisoners into society.

• "A single and continuous attack cannot be divided into stages to make it appear that treachery was involved. Treachery cannot happen midstream of an attack." — This dictum states the core ratio decidendi of the case: treachery must be present at the inception of the attack, and a continuous assault cannot be fragmented to inject treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

• "Contrary to the CA and the RTC's findings, the mere suddenness of the attack is not sufficient to hold that treachery is present. There must be a showing that the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the accused with a view of accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor." — This passage articulates the two-fold requirement for treachery and rejects the lower courts' reliance on suddenness alone.

• "One continuous attack... cannot be broken up into two or more parts and made to constitute separate, distinct, and independent attacks so that treachery may be injected therein and considered as a qualifying or aggravating circumstance." — Quoted from People vs. Cañete, this passage reinforces the doctrine that treachery cannot be appreciated midstream of a continuous attack.

• People vs. Solar, 858 Phil. 884 (2019) — Controlling precedent establishing the guidelines for alleging qualifying or aggravating circumstances in an Information and the waiver rule for failure to question defects through a motion to quash or bill of particulars.
• People vs. Caliao, 836 Phil. 966 (2018) — Followed; held that the accused was guilty of only homicide, not murder, absent showing of preparation to kill in a manner insuring the commission of the crime or making it impossible for the victim to retaliate.
• People vs. Gayon, 851 Phil. 1028 (2019) — Followed; ruled that there is no treachery where the accused did not carefully and deliberately plan the killing to ensure safety and success, especially where the victim was with people who could have helped repel the attack.
• People vs. Cañete, 44 Phil. 478 (1923) — Followed; held that the crime committed was homicide absent treachery at the inception of the continuous assault, although the final fatal blow might have been delivered under conditions exhibiting some features of alevosia.
• People vs. Canillo, G.R. No. 244051, April 28, 2021 — Followed; reiterated that treachery must be present at the inception of an attack to qualify a killing to murder, and a treacherous act during or subsequent to an attack cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Followed; applied for the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages, and the 6% interest per annum on monetary awards.

• Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery (alevosia); applied to determine whether the killing was qualified to murder, with the Court finding the requisites not established.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for homicide as reclusion temporal; applied as the basis for the modified penalty.
• Article 64(2), Revised Penal Code — Governs the application of penalties with mitigating circumstances; applied to determine the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.
• Article 76, Revised Penal Code — Defines the periods of the prescribed penalties; applied to compute the range of the indeterminate sentence.
• Article 89(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by service of the sentence; applied to order the accused's immediate release.
• Section 1, Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law, 1933) — Applied to impose the indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
• Rule 117, Section 3(e), Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Basis for a motion to quash when an Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; referenced in the Solar guidelines on defective allegations of qualifying circumstances.
• Rule 112, Section 8(a), Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Mandates the attachment to the Information of the resolution finding probable cause; referenced in the Solar guidelines.
• Rule 4, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) — States the purposes of imprisonment as protecting society and reducing recidivism through reintegration; cited to support the release of the accused who had served more than the maximum penalty.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Lazaro-Javier, J., was on official business.