People vs. Guzman

Treachery is present when an adult suddenly attacks an unarmed minor, as the victim's tender years and the suddenness of the assault render any defense impossible, notwithstanding that the crime occurred in a lighted and populated area.

On 25 November 1999, Michael Balber, a 17-year-old minor, was walking home along the corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City. Accused-appellant Nicolas Guzman and two unidentified companions, who were drinking at a nearby grocery store, suddenly approached and surrounded the victim. Appellant positioned himself behind the victim while his companions stood in front; the three men grabbed the victim's shoulders, overpowered him, and took turns stabbing him in the stomach with a bladed weapon. After the victim fell, appellant kicked him before fleeing. A police officer who witnessed the stabbing apprehended appellant at the scene, while the two companions escaped.

• The Attack: On 25 November 1999, at around 9:00 PM, Michael Balber was walking along Sto. Nino and Mactan Streets in Quezon City. Appellant and two companions, who were drinking nearby, suddenly surrounded the victim. Appellant stood behind the victim while the two companions stood in front. They grabbed the victim's shoulders, overpowered him, and took turns stabbing him in the stomach with a knife. After the victim fell to the ground, appellant kicked him. The three assailants fled when they noticed the victim was no longer moving.
• Prosecution Eyewitnesses: Ronald Santiago and Edgardo Bauto, both drivers residing in the barangay, witnessed the incident from a distance of five arms' length. Both positively identified appellant as the last person to stab the victim and kick him. Danilo Balber, the victim's father, arrived at the scene shortly after and saw the assailants fleeing; he chased them to appellant's house, where appellant's relatives blocked his entry. Police Inspector Alberto Malaza, who was driving home, saw appellant stabbing and kicking the victim from a distance of five to ten meters. After identifying himself as a police officer, he chased the fleeing assailants and apprehended appellant.
• Medico-Legal Findings: Dr. Francisco Supe, Jr. conducted the post-mortem examination and found multiple stab wounds on the victim's trunk, including a wound that lacerated the mesentery, small intestine, and left hemidiaphragm. The cause of death was determined to be hemorrhage and shock secondary to multiple stab wounds.
• Defense Version: Appellant claimed he was inside his store when he heard shouts and saw a rumble involving the victim's father and another person. He alleged that a certain Lemuel Grans Querubin arrived, wrestled with the victim, and stabbed him. Appellant denied stabbing the victim and claimed he was arbitrarily arrested when policemen entered his house looking for Lemuel. Defense witness Antonio Sulficiencia corroborated appellant's presence inside the store and testified that he saw Lemuel carrying a bloodied knife after the rumble.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies are filled with discrepancies and inconsistencies, specifically regarding the number of knives used (Ronald and Edgardo said one knife was shared, while Inspector Malaza said the companions were armed with separate bladed weapons), Inspector Malaza's contradicting versions of the apprehension, and the contradiction between Edgardo's and Danilo's accounts of how Danilo learned of the incident.
• Alibi and Denial: Petitioner maintained that he was inside his store when the stabbing occurred and that it was Lemuel who stabbed the victim. He presented Antonio Sulficiencia to corroborate this claim.
• Denial of Substitution of Witnesses: Petitioner claimed his constitutional rights to due process and to produce evidence were violated when the trial court denied his motion to present substitute witnesses for two defense witnesses who failed to appear.
• Appreciation of Treachery: Petitioner contended that treachery should not be appreciated because there was no evidence of a deliberate and conscious adoption of means to ensure execution without risk; the incident occurred in a lighted place with many people walking by.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Respondent countered that the cited inconsistencies refer to minor and unimportant details that do not affect the witnesses' credibility, and that the material point—that appellant stabbed the victim—was consistently testified to by all eyewitnesses.
• Alibi and Denial: Respondent argued that the defense of alibi must fail because it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the crime scene, his store being adjacent to where the stabbing occurred.
• Denial of Substitution of Witnesses: Respondent maintained that the trial court correctly denied the motion pursuant to the pre-trial order, and that appellant should have availed himself of his constitutional right to compulsory process to subpoena the hesitant witnesses.
• Appreciation of Treachery: Respondent asserted that treachery was present because the sudden and unexpected attack by three adults on an unarmed minor rendered the victim defenseless, and the presence of lighting or people does not negate treachery.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies regarding minor details warrant the reversal of the conviction.
• Alibi and Denial: Whether the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses, given the proximity of the appellant's store to the crime scene.
• Denial of Substitution of Witnesses: Whether the trial court violated the appellant's right to due process by denying his motion to present substitute witnesses not listed in the pre-trial order.
• Appreciation of Treachery: Whether treachery was correctly appreciated to qualify the killing as murder despite the crime occurring in a lighted and populated area.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The inconsistencies cited by appellant refer to minor and trivial matters that do not adversely affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Honest inconsistencies on minor details serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, credibility, considering the differences in perception and the nerve-wracking nature of the incident. The testimonies on material points—specifically that appellant stabbed the victim—were substantially consistent.
• Alibi and Denial: The defense of alibi was rejected because appellant failed to prove physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene. His store was located just beside Mactan Street, and the incident occurred a mere five arms' length away. Furthermore, the corroborating testimony of Antonio Sulficiencia was discredited because appellant himself never mentioned conversing with Antonio during his own testimony.
• Denial of Substitution of Witnesses: The denial of the motion for substitution was justified pursuant to Section 4, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which mandates that matters agreed upon in the pre-trial order bind the parties. The pre-trial order explicitly stated that unlisted witnesses would not be entertained. The rule can be relaxed in the interest of justice, but the exception did not apply because the motion appeared to be a "fishing expedition." Appellant also failed to invoke his right to compulsory process to subpoena the missing witnesses.
• Appreciation of Treachery: Treachery was correctly appreciated. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation. The suddenness of the attack by three adults who surrounded, overpowered, and took turns stabbing an unarmed 17-year-old rendered the victim defenseless. The fact that the place was lighted and populated does not negate treachery. When an adult illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists because a minor cannot be expected to put up a defense. Evident premeditation was correctly disregarded as there was no proof of prior planning or reflection.

• Treachery (alevosia) — There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Two elements are required: (1) employment of means ensuring the offender's safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, who has no opportunity for self-defense; and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of means. Treachery is especially present when an adult attacks a minor, as minor children cannot be expected to put up a defense.
• Alibi — For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.
• Pre-trial Order — Under Section 4, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, matters agreed upon in a pre-trial conference and stated in the pre-trial order bind the parties and limit the trial to matters not disposed of, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. Witnesses not mentioned in the pre-trial order will not be entertained during trial.
• Credibility of Witnesses — Honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness, especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to conscience and numbing to senses.

• "It should be made clear that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his part. This is even more true if the assailant is an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus, when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists."

• People v. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack, and that treachery exists when an adult illegally attacks a minor, who by tender years cannot be expected to put up a defense.
• People v. Abes, G.R. No. 138937 — Followed. Cited for the requisites of alibi, specifically the requirement of physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene.
• People v. Tagana, G.R. No. 133027 — Followed. Cited for the elements of evident premeditation, emphasizing that it must be shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched and that there was sufficient time for cool thought and reflection.
• People v. Pateo, G.R. No. 156786 — Followed. Cited for the rule that honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness.

• Article 14, Paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery (alevosia) as an aggravating circumstance where means, methods, or forms of execution are deliberately adopted to insure the crime's execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. Applied to qualify the killing to murder.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Applied as the crime committed.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides the rule for application of indivisible penalties; when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Applied to justify imposing reclusion perpetua.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Allows the award of exemplary damages when a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or generic. Applied to justify the award of exemplary damages due to the presence of treachery.
• Section 4, Rule 118, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Mandates that pre-trial orders bind the parties and limit the trial to matters not disposed of. Applied to uphold the trial court's denial of the motion to present substitute witnesses.
• Article III, Section 14(2), 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the accused to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses. Cited to note appellant's failure to avail of this remedy to compel his missing witnesses to testify.

Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.