People of the Philippines vs. Samuel “Sonny” Emperador y Lopez

A killing cannot be qualified as murder on the basis of treachery unless treachery is specifically alleged in the Information and proven; proof of treachery alone does not justify the increased penalty.

Samuel Emperador and Danilo Collado were residents of Barangay San Roque West, Agoo, La Union. The Revised Penal Code classifies unlawful killing as murder under Article 248 when qualifying circumstances such as treachery attend, and as homicide under Article 249 when no qualifying circumstance is present. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure require qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be stated in the complaint or information.

At about 6:30 p.m. on September 14, 1996, in Barangay San Roque West, Agoo, La Union, Danilo “Daniel” Collado y Baltazar, 48 years old, married, and a farmer and fisherman, was seated along the barangay road with his brothers Mario and Benigno Collado and with Edgardo Emperador, a brother of accused Samuel “Sonny” Emperador y Lopez. The group was conversing about a funny incident involving a common friend, Pito Dacanay, when Samuel arrived and positioned himself in front of Danilo. According to the prosecution, without apparent provocation, Samuel pulled a Japanese hunting knife or bayonet from his waist and stabbed Danilo on the chest. Danilo ran, but Samuel chased and caught up with him, threw him face down to the ground, and repeatedly stabbed him. When Mario tried to rescue Danilo, Samuel turned on him and inflicted a deep cut on his forearm; Mario fled to the hospital, where he later learned that Danilo had died from multiple stab wounds. Benigno gave a similar account: Samuel came from his left side, surged toward Danilo, and stabbed him; after Danilo fled and was caught, Samuel repeatedly stabbed him; Benigno tried to help but was too late, and Samuel also struck him with a hacking blow before he escaped.

Dr. Fredesvinda Pacis, who conducted the autopsy, found five stab wounds and several abrasions on Danilo’s face, forehead, and nose. She attributed the immediate cause of death to hypovolemic shock caused by a stab wound to the left ventricle of the heart, and she affirmed that the nature of the wounds indicated stabbing at close range. Ligaya Collado, Danilo’s wife, testified that his death was a great loss to the family, which had ten surviving children of school age. Danilo earned 24 sacks of palay in one year, a weekly income of P500.00 as a fisherman, and an additional P300.00 as a farm worker. The family spent P14,500.00 for the coffin and funeral, P500.00 for religious services, P900.00 for the tomb, and P18,080.00 for food and other expenses during the wake and funeral, and suffered extreme pain and suffering.

The accused interposed self-defense. He claimed that he was drinking in front of his house with Domingo Collado, Benigno Collado, Pito Dacanay, and Edgardo Emperador when Danilo arrived boisterously and shouted invectives at him. Danilo kicked a bottle of gin and lunged with a scythe to stab the accused; the accused punted the scythe out of Danilo’s hands. Danilo then grabbed a knife that the group had used to slice their pulutan, and the two wrestled for possession of the knife; it was while they were grappling that Danilo was stabbed. The accused surmised that if he had not fought back, he could have been the one killed. Emelita Lopez, a neighbor, corroborated the accused’s version. From her window, she saw the accused drinking gin with his brother Edgardo, Pito, Domingo, and Benigno Collado near her house. Danilo, who was drunk, arrived and insulted Samuel, kicked a bottle of gin that hit Samuel’s ankle, and soon engaged Samuel in a fistfight. Pito and Edgardo scampered away, but the Collado brothers remained. Domingo and Benigno picked up a hollow block and threw it at Samuel, who evaded it. Lopez tried to pacify Domingo, but he told her not to interfere; she backed off when she noticed he was holding an 8-inch knife. She saw Danilo running away but bumping into a post and collapsing to the ground.

Roberto Miranda, the barangay captain of San Roque West, testified that Samuel came to see him on September 14, 1996, between 6:30 and 7:30 in the evening, and said that he was surrendering to the authorities. Miranda called the police and turned in Samuel, who also turned over the Japanese hunting knife or bayonet.

The Information charged Samuel with murder but did not specifically allege treachery or evident premeditation. The trial court found the prosecution’s eyewitness account credible and rejected the accused’s claim of self-defense.

• Self-Defense: Appellant maintained that he acted in complete self-defense, insisting that the trial court failed to recognize his natural instinct to protect himself from the impending danger posed by the victim and that the infliction of the fatal wound was unavoidable.
• Treachery: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the attack upon the victim was perpetrated with treachery, thereby qualifying the killing to murder.
• Non-Allegation of Treachery: Appellant further argued that even if treachery was proven, the killing could not be qualified to murder because the Information did not allege treachery.

• Self-Defense: Whether accused-appellant acted in complete self-defense.
• Treachery: Whether the attack was perpetrated with treachery, thereby qualifying the killing to murder.
• Non-Allegation of Treachery: Whether the killing may be qualified to murder despite the non-allegation of treachery in the Information.
• Passion and Obfuscation: Whether passion and obfuscation may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
• Penalty and Civil Liability: Whether the penalty and damages should be modified in light of the proper conviction and circumstances.

• Self-Defense: No. The claim of complete self-defense was not established; the number and location of the victim’s wounds belied appellant’s version, and the eyewitness account of an unprovoked attack was credible.
• Treachery: The attack was treacherous in fact, but treachery could not qualify the killing to murder because the Information did not specifically allege treachery or evident premeditation.
• Non-Allegation of Treachery: No. Qualifying circumstances must be both alleged and proven under the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; since treachery was not alleged, the killing was only homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Passion and Obfuscation: No. Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery; the trial court correctly appreciated voluntary surrender but not passion and obfuscation.
• Penalty and Civil Liability: Modified. Appellant is guilty only of homicide; the indeterminate penalty is 9 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 13 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, with damages as ordered.

• Self-Defense: The trial court’s findings on credibility are accorded high respect because the trial judge had the essential aids to determine the veracity of conflicting testimony; unless facts or circumstances of real weight were evidently ignored, those findings are not disturbed on appeal. Mario Collado’s narration bore no earmark of falsehood. The number and location of the victim’s wounds—five stab wounds, including the fatal wound to the left ventricle, and abrasions—belied the claim of self-defense. The prosecution showed that the accused arrived, stabbed Danilo while seated, chased him, and repeatedly stabbed him after he fell. Self-defense was therefore not established.
• Treachery: The Court found the act treacherous because the mode of attack neither forewarned Danilo nor afforded him any opportunity to make a defense or to ward off the attack. That factual finding, however, did not suffice to qualify the killing because the Information did not specifically allege treachery or evident premeditation.
• Non-Allegation of Treachery: The Information did not specifically allege treachery or evident premeditation. Under the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Sections 8 and 9, qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language in the complaint or information. When the law or rules specify circumstances that aggravate an offense or attach a greater penalty than that ordinarily prescribed, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven to justify the increased penalty. Since treachery was not alleged, it could not qualify the killing to murder. Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, a killing without the attendance of any qualifying circumstance is homicide.
• Passion and Obfuscation: The trial court correctly appreciated voluntary surrender but not passion and obfuscation. Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery, which was established though not alleged. In passion and obfuscation, one loses reason and self-control, largely precluding deliberate employment of a particular method, means, or form of attack. It could not be present where the accused did not act due to an uncontrollable burst of emotion provoked by prior or unjust acts or a legitimate stimulus that could overcome reason.
• Penalty and Civil Liability: Homicide carries the penalty of reclusion temporal, with a duration of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. With one mitigating circumstance, voluntary surrender, the penalty should be meted in its minimum period of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed, prision mayor or 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, as minimum, to anywhere within reclusion temporal in its minimum period, 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months, as maximum. The Court imposed 9 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 13 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The heirs were awarded P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages, P35,000.00 actual damages, and loss of earning capacity. The deceased was 48 years old and earning about P800.00 weekly or P40,000.00 annually; using the formula 2/3 (80 – age at death) x (gross annual income – living expenses [50% of gross annual income]), the Court computed lost earnings at P426,600.00, while the dispositive portion awarded P426,000.00 for lost earnings. Costs were taxed against appellant.

• Qualifying circumstances must be alleged and proven — Under the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the complaint or information must state qualifying and aggravating circumstances in ordinary and concise language. When the law or rules specify circumstances that aggravate an offense or attach a greater penalty, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven to justify the increased penalty. In this case, although treachery was established in fact, it was not alleged in the Information; the killing could therefore only be homicide.
• Treachery — Treachery exists where the mode of attack neither forewarns the victim nor affords the victim an opportunity to make a defense or to ward off the attack. The Court found the attack on Danilo treacherous because he was stabbed while seated and then chased and repeatedly stabbed after he fell, but treachery could not qualify the killing to murder because it was not alleged.
• Self-defense — A claim of self-defense fails where the number and location of the victim’s wounds belie the accused’s version and the eyewitness account of an unprovoked attack is credible. The trial court’s findings on witness credibility are accorded high respect and are not disturbed on appeal absent facts or circumstances of real weight that were evidently ignored.
• Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery — In passion and obfuscation, one loses reason and self-control, largely precluding deliberate employment of a particular method, means, or form of attack. It cannot be present where the accused did not act due to an uncontrollable burst of emotion provoked by prior or unjust acts or a legitimate stimulus that could overcome reason. Because treachery was established, passion and obfuscation were not appreciated.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — For homicide with one mitigating circumstance, the penalty is fixed with the minimum taken from the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code and the maximum within the minimum period of the prescribed penalty. The Court applied this to impose 9 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 13 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
• Loss of earning capacity formula — Net earning capacity is computed as 2/3 (80 – age at the time of death) x (gross annual income – living expenses [50% of gross annual income]). Applied to a 48-year-old victim earning P40,000.00 annually, the Court computed lost earnings at P426,600.00, while the dispositive portion awarded P426,000.00 for lost earnings.

• "While, verily, the appellant’s act was treacherous - the mode of attack neither forewarned Danilo nor afforded him any opportunity to make a defense or to ward off the attack - the Information, however, bore no specific allegation of treachery or evident premeditation." — This states the ratio decidendi: the attack was treacherous in fact, but treachery could not qualify the killing because it was not alleged in the Information.
• "When the law or rules specify certain circumstances that can aggravate an offense or that would attach to such offense a greater penalty than that ordinarily prescribed, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the increased penalty." — This is the controlling rule on qualifying and aggravating circumstances, requiring both allegation and proof before an increased penalty may be imposed.
• "Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 248, kills another without the attendance of any qualifying circumstances shall be deemed guilty of homicide." — This provision supplied the basis for reducing the conviction from murder to homicide after treachery was excluded as a qualifying circumstance.
• "Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery which was established though not alleged." — This doctrine explains why the trial court’s appreciation of passion and obfuscation was rejected despite the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender being credited.

• People vs. Anonuevo, G.R. No. 137843, 12 October 2001 — Cited for the rule that where innocence or culpability hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the trial court’s findings are accorded a high degree of respect and are not disturbed on appeal absent ignored facts or circumstances of real weight.
• People vs. Alao, 322 SCRA 380 — Cited in support of the same rule on deference to trial court findings unless facts or circumstances of real weight were evidently ignored.
• People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, 23 August 2001 — Cited for the requirement under the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be alleged in the complaint or information.
• People vs. Tabanggay, 334 SCRA 575 — Cited for the rule that circumstances aggravating an offense or attaching a greater penalty must be both alleged and proven.
• People vs. Wong, 70 O.G. 4844 (05 October 1973) — Cited for the rule that passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery.
• People vs. Mancao, Jr., 132 SCRA 132, citing U.S. vs. Taylor, 6 Phil. 162 — Cited for the definition and requisites of passion and obfuscation.
• People vs. Teehankee, 249 SCRA 54 — Cited for treating 50% of gross annual income as a fair calculation of living expenses for lost earning capacity.
• People vs. Pascual, 331 SCRA 252 — Cited for the formula used to compute loss of earning capacity.

• Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000), Sections 8 and 9 — Require the complaint or information to state the designation of the offense and to specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances in ordinary and concise language. Applied here because the Information did not allege treachery or evident premeditation, so those circumstances could not qualify the killing.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 248 — Defines murder and lists attendant circumstances, including treachery, that qualify a killing. Applied here only to show that treachery was not alleged and therefore could not be used to qualify the killing.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 249 — Defines homicide as killing another without the attendance of any qualifying circumstance. Applied here because the killing was reduced to homicide after treachery was excluded as a qualifying circumstance.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate penalty after the conviction was reduced to homicide with one mitigating circumstance.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur.