People vs. Dela Peña

Treachery attends the killing where the accused attacks the victim while the latter is asleep and unable to defend himself, ensuring the crime's execution without risk to the attacker and qualifying the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Rico Dela Peña, brother-in-law of Olipio Gomez Amahit, was charged with murder for stabbing the latter on December 14, 2006, in Barangay Samak, Mabinay, Negros Oriental. Ernie D. Amahit, the victim's son, witnessed the accused enter the family nipa hut and stab his father multiple times while he slept face down. The accused claimed he acted in self-defense after the victim allegedly attacked him with a bolo during a confrontation regarding uprooted banana plants.

• The Incident: On December 14, 2006, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Ernie D. Amahit was returning to their nipa hut in Barangay Samak, Mabinay, Negros Oriental, after tending to their carabaos. From a few meters away, he saw accused-appellant Rico Dela Peña enter the hut where the victim Olipio G. Amahit was sleeping.
• The Attack: Ernie witnessed accused-appellant stab his father, who was lying face down, at the back with a bolo ("pinuti") several times. The victim shouted for help. Accused-appellant then threatened to kill Ernie, prompting the latter to flee and inform his mother.
• Physical Evidence: Post-mortem examination revealed multiple stab wounds concentrated on the victim's back and chest, including: a five-inch diagonal wound on the right upper chest exposing the heart and internal organs; a two-inch penetrating vertical wound below the nipple; a five-inch wound below the right scapula exposing posterior ribs; and a four-inch wound above the left iliac crest causing the large intestine to herniate.
• Defense Version: Accused-appellant claimed that while walking home, the victim called him to discuss uprooted banana plants. When accused-appellant inquired why, the victim allegedly threatened to kill him, pulled out a bolo, and thrust it at him. They wrestled for the weapon, and upon gaining control, accused-appellant allegedly stabbed the victim first in the stomach, then continued stabbing as they grappled.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC gave credence to Ernie's eyewitness testimony and found treachery in the attack on a sleeping victim. The CA affirmed, noting that the location and depth of wounds contradicted self-defense and indicated deliberate aggression.

• Self-Defense: Petitioner maintained that he acted in self-defense after the victim unlawfully aggressed against him with a bolo, and that he only stabbed the victim twice in the stomach during their struggle, with other wounds resulting from their fall and roll on the ground.
• Credibility of Witness: Petitioner argued that Ernie's testimony was inconsistent with his sworn affidavit and thus unreliable, rendering the prosecution's case insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.
• Sufficiency of Information: Petitioner impliedly challenged the sufficiency of the Information for failing to properly allege the specific elements of treachery, arguing that the qualifying circumstance was not adequately described.

• Treachery: Respondent argued that treachery was properly appreciated as the attack was sudden and unexpected against a sleeping victim who could not defend himself, ensuring the crime's execution without risk to the accused.
• Self-Defense: Respondent countered that the physical evidence—multiple deep wounds mostly on the victim's back—belied the claim of self-defense and showed instead a deliberate intent to kill, inconsistent with the accused's claim of only two stomach wounds.
• Damages: Respondent supported the CA's award of damages pursuant to the standards established in People v. Jugueta for murder cases where the penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua.

• Credibility: Whether the RTC erred in giving credence to Ernie Amahit's testimony identifying accused-appellant as the assailant.
• Self-Defense: Whether accused-appellant successfully established the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
• Treachery: Whether treachery qualified the killing to murder.
• Information: Whether the Information sufficiently alleged treachery to qualify the killing to murder.

• Credibility: The RTC's assessment of Ernie's credibility was accorded conclusive effect absent any showing of misapprehension of facts. Minor inconsistencies between affidavit and testimony did not affect credibility as sworn statements taken ex parte are inferior to testimony given in open court.
• Self-Defense: Self-defense was not established. By invoking it, accused-appellant admitted authorship of the killing and assumed the burden of proving unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The prosecution's evidence showed the victim was sleeping when attacked, negating unlawful aggression. Even assuming aggression existed, the danger had ceased when accused-appellant gained control of the bolo; continuing to stab the victim multiple times constituted retaliation, not defense.
• Treachery: Treachery was present. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself. A sleeping victim is absolutely unable to defend himself, take flight, or avoid the assault, ensuring the crime's execution without risk to the attacker.
• Information: The Information sufficiently alleged treachery by specifically stating that the accused assaulted the victim "with treachery." Any defect was deemed waived under Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for failure to file a motion to quash before arraignment, and was cured by competent evidence presented during trial.

• Treachery in Murder — Treachery exists where the offender attacks a sleeping victim, as the victim is deprived of any opportunity to defend himself or flee, ensuring the crime's execution without risk to the offender. The qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the Information and proven during trial.
• Elements of Self-Defense — Self-defense requires: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Once aggression ceases, the right to defend oneself expires; continued attack constitutes retaliation.
• Waiver of Defects in Information — Failure to file a motion to quash on the ground of insufficiency of information before arraignment constitutes a waiver of such objection, except for grounds relating to jurisdiction, previous jeopardy, or extinction of criminal liability. Defects may also be cured by evidence presented without objection.
• Damages for Murder — Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua under RA 9346, the heirs are entitled to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus P50,000.00 as temperate damages, all earning interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment.

• "Treachery attends the killing where the accused attacks the victim while the latter is asleep and unable to defend himself. Absolutely, a sleeping victim is not in a position to defend himself, take flight or otherwise avoid the assault, thus ensuring that the crime is successfully executed without any risk to the attacker."
• "The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor of an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor."
• "When the unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed."

• People v. Caritativo, 451 Phil. 741 (2003) — Controlling precedent establishing that treachery attends the killing of a sleeping victim; followed and applied.
• People v. Clariño, 414 Phil. 358 (2001) — Cited for the proposition that attacking a sleeping victim constitutes treachery.
• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Controlling precedent for the award of damages in murder cases where the penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua; followed for the specific amounts of civil indemnity, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages.
• People v. Candaza, 524 Phil. 589 (2006) and People v. Solar, G.R. No. 225595 (2019) — Controlling precedents on the waiver of objections to the sufficiency of information; followed to hold that failure to move to quash constitutes waiver.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death; applied to qualify the killing as murder through treachery.
• Article 15, Revised Penal Code — Defines aggravating circumstances including relationship; applied to note the special aggravating circumstance of relationship (accused being brother-in-law of victim).
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty; applied to reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua and declare the accused ineligible for parole.
• Section 6, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Sets the requirements for a sufficient information; applied to determine that the information sufficiently alleged treachery.
• Section 9, Rule 117, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides for the waiver of grounds for a motion to quash; applied to hold that the accused waived any objection to the sufficiency of the information.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ.