People vs.

Toro
G.R. No. 245922. January 25, 2021
LAZARO-JAVIER, J

FACTS:
Danilo Toro and Salvador Cahusay were jointly charged with Murder for the death of Pascualito Espiñ a
Sr. On arraignment, the accused initially pleaded guilty to Homicide which the trial court refused. He then
changed his plea to not guilty to the charge of Murder. Meanwhile, Cahusay remained at large.

A. Prosecution's Version

The incident happened on March 21, 2004 at midnight; the following day Espiñ a, Sr. was found dead
inside appellant's house. The autopsy report showed that Espiñ a, Sr. suffered 33 stab wounds — 10 of which
were fatal, located in the left side of his body where his heart was, and 3 stab wounds in the right side of his
body puncturing his lungs; concluding that the assailant and the victim were near each other and the
instrument used was a knife.

The victim's minor son, Espiñ a, Jr., testified that Cahusay invited his father to a drinking spree and the
two were drinking inside their house until the appellant invited them to move to his own house to continue
drinking. When fetch his father at the "suy-ab "(extension of the house), he saw his father being held by
Cahusay by the arms while the appellant was stabbing him. He was only two arms length away from them and
since a gas torch illuminated the suy-ab, he clearly saw the attack on his father and the assailant's identity.
Though his father had a knife in a scabbard tucked on his waist, he had no chance to defend himself. Out of
fear, he ran toward the house of their Barangay Tanod and sought help, but he was refused. Thus, he asked
Dodoy to accompany him to his aunt. The following day, his aunt sought assistance from the Barangay Council
to retrieve Espiñ a, Sr.'s lifeless body. Inside appellant's house, they saw his father's lifeless body seated on the
floor. Appellant and his family and Cahusay were nowhere to be found.

B. Defense's Version

Appellant testified that Espiñ a, Sr. and Cahusay came to his house for a drinking spree. They brought with
them 1 gallon of tuba which they consumed at the suy-ab . He did not recall any verbal altercation with
Espiñ a, Sr. because they only talked about their salaries. After 2 hours, Espiñ a, Sr. and Cahusay decided to go
home as there was no more tuba left to drink. After his visitors left, he and his family went to sleep. The
following morning, his wife was shocked when she saw Espiñ a, Sr.'s lifeless body at the suy-ab. Afraid, he and
his family went to their house in another barangay. They did not inform anyone of the incident. He intended
to return to their house to check on other things but decided not to when he got informed that he was the
suspect for Espiñ a, Sr.'s death and the latter's brother was already looking for him for revenge.

C. Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court found the accused Danilo Toro guilty of the crime of MURDER. It held that treachery
qualified the killing of Espiñ a, Sr. to murder; however, the testimony failed to establish evident premeditation.

D. Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that evident premeditation was
apparent when appellant and Cahusay invited Espiñ a, Sr. to a drinking spree and in unison over a pre-hatched
plan, they inflicted 33 fatal wounds on the victim. Also, the severity and number of wounds inflicted clearly
showed treachery.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused should only be convicted of Homicide because the prosecution failed to
sufficiently prove the presence of treachery.

1
Digest-maker (Santiago, Jasmin)
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused is guilty of the crime of Homicide as treachery was not
present.

Murder is penalized under Article 248 of the RPC as amended by RA 7659. To sustain a conviction of
murder, the following elements must be present: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her;
(3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation,
etc.; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.

In regard to the second element, Espiñ a, Jr. positively identified the assailant giving a clear,
straightforward, and categorical eyewitness account of the incident. With the light from the sirilya (gas torch),
Espiñ a, Jr. was able to identify appellant as the one who stabbed his father. Against appellant's denial and
alibi, Espiñ a, Jr.'s positive identification surely deserves greater weight and credit.

On the other hand, appellant attempted to discredit Espiñ a, Jr. by questioning the latter's reaction after
witnessing his father being stabbed to death. There is no merit in this contention as the Court consistently
ruled there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a frightful
experience. Lacking any ill motive to implicate appellant to this gruesome crime, Espiñ a, Jr.'s credibility must
be upheld. Any person, especially a minor, would not point to an innocent person as fall guy as his father's
assailant but would want the real killer to be prosecuted to serve justice.

Regarding the third element, the Supreme Court held that there is insufficient evidence to establish
the presence of treachery here. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means in the execution which tend to insure its execution without risk to him. It requires:
(a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or
retaliate; and (b) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. There must be clear
and convincing evidence on how the aggression was made, how it began, and how it developed; absent this, it
cannot be established from suppositions drawn only from circumstances prior to the very moment of the
aggression, that an accused perpetrated the killing with treachery.

In the case at bar, the number of wounds inflicted reveals a determined intent to kill; however,
Espiñ a, Jr. was not able to witness the commencement of the aggression or initial attack. He did not give an
account either on how the attack resulted in the victim's death. There was no mention at all that the attack
was sudden and expected, leaving the victim totally unable to defend himself or even ran away. Treachery,
therefore, cannot be appreciated to qualify the killing to murder. At best, the prosecution merely proved that
appellant and Cahusay took advantage of their superior strength and employed means to weaken the victim's
defense — circumstances which would have qualified the killing to murder were they alleged in the Information.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the killing was not premeditated. The elements of evident
premeditation are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts
manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; (3) a lapse of time between the decision
to commit the crime and its actual execution enough to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of
his acts.

In this case, the eyewitness failed to establish when the assailants decided to commit the offense and
the lapse of sufficient time from such decision until the commission of the offense, necessary for the assailants
to have reflected on their actions. Hence, lacking any of the circumstances to qualify Espiñ a, Sr.'s death to
Murder, appellant may only be convicted of Homicide.

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated of the CA is
affirmed with modification and Danilo Toro is found GUILTY of HOMICIDE ONLY.

2
Digest-maker (Santiago, Jasmin)