People vs. Asilan

Treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the attack is sudden, unexpected, and from behind, ensuring execution without risk to the assailant; furthermore, failure to object to the specificity of the allegations in the Information during trial waives the right to challenge it on appeal.

On March 27, 2006, at around 10:00 PM, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Randy Adovas y Pe-caat was attempting to arrest an individual along Teresa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila. While the uniformed officer was pushing the suspect against a wall and about to handcuff him, Joseph Asilan y Tabornal arrived, drew a fan knife, and repeatedly stabbed the officer from behind. The suspect being arrested then held the officer's hand, took the officer's firearm, and shot him. Asilan and his companion fled, but Asilan returned to the scene shortly after, where he was identified by an eyewitness to a passing policeman and subsequently arrested.

• The Incident: On March 27, 2006, at around 10:00 PM, Joselito Binosa and Pol Justine San Diego witnessed PO1 Randy Adovas attempting to arrest a man along Teresa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila. As the officer pushed the suspect against a wall and was about to handcuff him, Asilan suddenly appeared from behind and repeatedly stabbed the officer with a fan knife. The suspect being arrested held the officer's hand, disarmed him, and shot him with his own service firearm. Asilan and the suspect fled towards the railroad tracks, but Asilan returned to the scene shortly after, where Binosa pointed him out to a passing policeman, leading to his arrest and the confiscation of the fan knife.
• Medico-Legal Findings: Dr. Vladimir V. Villaseñor's Medico Legal Report established the cause of death as multiple stab wounds and a gunshot wound of the trunk and upper extremities.
• Defense Version: Asilan claimed he was waiting for a jeepney when three motorcycles stopped near him, and the passengers frisked him and brought him to a police station. He alleged he was forced to admit to the stabbing, mauled for refusing, and presented to eyewitnesses who were not the same individuals presented by the prosecution in court.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found the prosecution witnesses credible, ruling that their positive identification prevailed over Asilan's denial. The RTC acquitted Asilan of Direct Assault because the prosecution failed to prove the officer was in the performance of duty, but convicted him of Murder, appreciating treachery. Evident premeditation was not appreciated due to lack of evidence of planning.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent, incredible, and contrary to common experience. He claimed Binosa "improved" his testimony on cross-examination by recalling more details, and that San Diego's detailed recollection was "too good to be true" for an incident lasting approximately two minutes.
• Improbability of Behavior: Petitioner contended that it was unlikely that no bystanders warned the victim of the impending attack and unnatural for the assailant to return to the scene of the crime.
• Treachery: Petitioner argued that treachery could not be appreciated because the prosecution failed to prove he consciously or deliberately adopted the mode of attack, asserting the attack was merely sudden and occurred in a spur of the moment.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Petitioner asserted that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation was violated because the Information did not specifically allege how treachery was carried out, effectively charging him only with Homicide.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Respondent countered that the witnesses were candid, categorical, and trustworthy, and that minor inconsistencies enhance credibility by showing the testimony was not rehearsed.
• Treachery: Respondent maintained that treachery was present because the attack was sudden, from behind, and without provocation, ensuring execution without risk to the assailant.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Respondent argued that the Information sufficiently alleged treachery and that petitioner waived any objection by failing to raise it during trial.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in relying on the allegedly inconsistent and unnatural testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Treachery: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated despite the claim that the attack was merely spur-of-the-moment.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the accused can be convicted of Murder when the Information failed to specifically allege how treachery was carried out.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The conviction was affirmed, the trial court's assessment of witness credibility being undisturbed. Minor inconsistencies in testimonies regarding collateral matters do not affect the substance of the declaration but rather enhance credibility by removing suspicion of rehearsed testimony. Witnesses are not expected to remember every detail with perfect recall.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. Positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over the inherently weak defense of denial. The failure to flee and apparent normalcy of behavior after the crime do not imply innocence, as culprits behave erratically; some remain in the vicinity to avoid suspicion.
• Treachery: Treachery was correctly appreciated. The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The attack from behind, repeatedly stabbing the victim sans provocation or warning, made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.
• Sufficiency of the Information: The conviction for Murder was sustained despite the alleged deficiency in the Information. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was specifically alleged therein. Moreover, failure to move to quash or object to the sufficiency of the Information during trial constitutes a waiver of any objections, and the deficiency is deemed cured by competent evidence presented.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms that tend directly and especially to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. The essence is a sudden and unexpected attack without provocation. Applied: Treachery was appreciated because Asilan attacked the victim from behind without warning, making defense or retaliation impossible.
• Waiver of Objections to Information — Under Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the failure of the accused to assert any ground for a motion to quash before pleading constitutes a waiver of all objections, except those based on the grounds provided in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3. An Information lacking essential allegations may sustain a conviction if the accused fails to object and the deficiency is cured by competent evidence. Applied: Asilan's failure to question the sufficiency of the Information during trial waived his right to challenge it on appeal.
• Loss of Earning Capacity — Indemnity for loss of earning capacity is computed using the formula: Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 [80 - age at time of death] x [gross annual income - 50% of gross annual income (living expenses)]. Applied: Computed for the 29-year-old victim earning ₱8,605.00 monthly, resulting in ₱1,755,420.00.

• "It is elementary in the rule of evidence that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration nor the veracity or weight of their testimony. In fact, these minor inconsistencies enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed."
• "Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and even erratically in externalizing and manifesting their guilt. Some may escape or flee — a circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt — while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other members of the community."

• People v. Albarido, 420 Phil. 235 (2001) — Followed. Held that minor inconsistencies in testimonies regarding collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the testimony and instead enhance credibility by showing they were not rehearsed.
• People v. Tan, 373 Phil. 990 (1999) — Followed. Expounded on the concept of treachery, stating that its essence is a sudden and unexpected attack without provocation, ensuring execution without risk.
• People v. Candaza, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 280 — Followed. Held that an Information lacking essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during trial and the deficiency is cured by competent evidence.
• People v. Agunias, 344 Phil. 467 (1997) — Followed. Pronounced that flight is indicative of guilt, but the converse is not necessarily true; culprits may remain in the vicinity to avoid suspicion.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines Murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death if committed with attendant circumstances such as treachery. Applied to convict Asilan of Murder.
• Section 6, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Enumerates the requisites for the sufficiency of a complaint or information. Applied to determine that the Information charging Asilan was sufficient.
• Section 9, Rule 117, Rules of Court — Provides that failure to move to quash or allege any ground therefor before pleading constitutes a waiver of objections, except those based on specific serious grounds. Applied to deem Asilan to have waived objections to the sufficiency of the Information.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Allows the imposition of exemplary damages as part of civil liability when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Applied to award exemplary damages due to the presence of treachery.
• Article 2206, Civil Code — Mandates that the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, to be paid to the latter's heirs. Applied to compute and award loss of earning capacity.

Renato C. Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez.