People vs. Doniego

Treachery cannot be appreciated when the assault on the first victim did not ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender, and when subsequent victims were put on guard by the initial attack. When an offender acts in a fit of rage upon seeing a family member killed, the mitigating circumstance of passion/obfuscation or immediate vindication of a grave offense applies, downgrading the crime from murder to homicide.

Santos Doniego was charged with multiple murder for the deaths of Anselmo Garcia, Ciriaco Palor, and Maximo Viernes. The events occurred during a barrio fiesta dance in Gonzaga, Cagayan. The case hinges on the qualifying circumstances of the killing and the presence of mitigating circumstances arising from the immediate preceding death of the appellant's son.

On the night of July 1, 1957, a dance was held in Cabanbanan Norte, Gonzaga, Cagayan, in celebration of the barrio fiesta. Due to rain, the dance was transferred to a two-story house owned by Severino Patubo. At around 10:00 PM, while the dance was ongoing, Domingo Doniego, the appellant's son, lunged at Patrocinio Viernes with a Batangas knife. Camilo Ragual, a companion of Patrocinio, wrested the knife and stabbed Domingo in the back. Severino Patubo called his brother Nemesio, the second barrio lieutenant, who sent rural policeman Ciriaco Palor to fetch the first barrio lieutenant, Magno Taloza. Taloza and Palor arrived shortly after, and Taloza began to investigate the incident.

Santos Doniego, the appellant, then arrived and asked who had killed his son. Upon being told that Camilo Ragual was responsible, Doniego followed Severino Patubo upstairs, shouted an expletive, and unsheathed his bolo. He immediately began to assault the people present. He stabbed Vicente Pescador on the right thigh, who then jumped from the back porch. Doniego hacked rural policeman Anselmo Garcia on the left side of his back. Turning around, he stabbed Avelino Paet, the amplifier operator, in the coccyx. He then stabbed Ciriaco Palor in the abdomen while the latter was assisting Taloza. Maximo Viernes ran towards the kitchen, where Doniego inflicted a through-and-through wound on his back, piercing his abdomen. Palor died instantaneously, Viernes died half an hour later, and Garcia died at midnight after telling his wife that Doniego had stabbed him.

The appellant denied committing the killings. He testified that he went to the house unarmed upon learning his son was fighting, found his son dead, and carried him home. The defense presented an alternative narrative where Patrocinio Viernes went upstairs, challenged Domingo's relatives, and a melee ensued involving Ciriaco Palor and Maximo Viernes. The trial court rejected this version, finding the prosecution witnesses more credible, noting that Patrocinio would not have lingered after his companion killed Domingo, and that Palor was downstairs fetching the barrio lieutenant when the defense claimed he was upstairs fighting.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in giving more weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
• Erroneous Conviction: Appellant maintained that the trial court erred in convicting him of three murders, claiming he did not commit the killings and presenting an alternative narrative where Patrocinio Viernes and others were the aggressors.

• Credibility of Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in giving more weight to the prosecution's evidence and convicting the appellant.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Whether treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the crimes to qualify them as murder.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Whether the mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of a grave offense or passion/obfuscation are present.

• Credibility of Evidence: No. The trial court correctly found the appellant guilty, as the prosecution's version was more logical and consistent with the evidence.
• Qualifying Circumstances: No. Treachery and evident premeditation were not present; the assault on the first victim put the others on guard, and there was no evidence of premeditation.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Yes. The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense, or alternatively passion/obfuscation, attended the commission of the crimes due to the appellant's son being stabbed to death just prior.

• Credibility of Evidence: The defense's version was implausible. Patrocinio Viernes would not have stayed to challenge Domingo's relatives after his companion killed Domingo. Ciriaco Palor was downstairs fetching the barrio lieutenant when the defense claimed he was upstairs fighting. Eyewitnesses positively identified the appellant as the assailant. The motives imputed by the defense to the prosecution witnesses were insufficient to discredit them.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Treachery requires means that ensure the crime's execution without risk to the offender from the victim's defense. The assault on Pescador might have been sudden, but it put the other victims on guard, so their subsequent attacks were not unexpected. Evident premeditation was clearly absent as the appellant acted in a spontaneous fit of rage upon seeing his dead son.
• Mitigating Circumstances: It was natural and logical for the appellant to be enraged and obfuscated upon seeing his dead son. This justified the application of the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense, or alternatively, passion/obfuscation. Since these two cannot co-exist, they are applied alternatively. Consequently, the crime is homicide, not murder.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Requires that the offender employs means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves from the defense the victim might make. Here, treachery was not appreciated because the initial assault on one victim put the others on guard, making subsequent attacks not sudden or unexpected.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Passion/Obfuscation vs. Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense — Both arise from the same set of facts (seeing one's son stabbed to death) and cannot co-exist; they are applied alternatively. Their presence reduces murder to homicide.

• "To justify the attendance or concurrence of treachery in the commission of a crime against persons, the offender must have availed himself of such means as would insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself that may come from the assaulted person." — This defines the requisites of treachery and explains why it was not appreciated in this case.
• "On the other hand, the attenuating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense — the stabbing of his son to death, or of having committed the crime upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation, may be deemed to have attended the commission of the three crimes alternatively, because both mitigating circumstances cannot co-exist." — This explains the application of alternative mitigating circumstances that downgrade the crime to homicide.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes homicide. Applied here because the absence of qualifying circumstances and the presence of mitigating circumstances reduced the crime from murder to homicide, prescribing the penalty of reclusion temporal.
• Article 70, Revised Penal Code — Relates to the totality of penalties; the trial court originally sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua not exceeding 40 years under this article.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to impose a minimum of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and a maximum of 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal for each homicide.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, and Makalintal, JJ.