Case Digest: People vs. Macaspac, GR 198954, February 22, 2017

             Homicide | Criminal Law

Facts:

The case was archived for more than 15 years because Rodrigo Macaspac had gone into hiding and remained at large until his arrest on July 28, 2004. 

The Prosecution's evidence revealed that in the evening of July 7, 1988, Macaspac was having drinks with Ricardo Surban, Dionisio Barcomo alias Boy, Jimmy Reyes, and Jebulan on Pangako Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. 

In the course of their drinking, an argument ensued between Macaspac and Jebulan. It became so heated that, Macaspac uttered to the group: Hintayin yo aka d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo, and then left. After around three minutes Macaspac returned wielding kitchen knife. He confronted and taunted Jebulan, saying: Ano? Jebulan simply replied: Tama na. At that point, Macaspac suddenly stabbed Jebulan on the lower right area of his chest, and ran away. Surban and the others witnessed the stabbing of Jebulan. The badly wounded Jebulan was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.

Macaspac initially invoked self-defense, testifying that he and Jebulan had scuffled for the possession of the knife, and that he had then stabbed Jebulan once he seized control of the knife. However, Macaspac later claimed that Jebulan had been stabbed by accident when he fell on the knife. He denied being the person with whom Jebulan had the argument and tried to defend himself, stating that he hit Jebulan with a wooden chair, causing him to fall on the knife.

Appellate Court: Guilty of murder. Qualified by treachery.

Issue:

WoN the CA erred in affirming his conviction for murder on the ground that the Prosecution did not establish his guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

Guilty of homicide.

Penalty: Reclusion Temporal

On Self-defense: 

The CA correctly observed that inconsistencies had rendered Macaspac's testimony doubtful as to shatter his credibility. CA rejected his claim of self-defense by highlighting the fact that Jebulan had not engaged in any unlawful aggression against him. Instead, the CA observed that Jebulan was already running away from the scene when Macaspac stabbed him.  Hence, granting that Jebulan was initially the aggressor, appellant's testimony shows that said unlawful aggression already ceased when appellant stabbed him. Clearly, appellant's act of stabbing said victim would no longer be justified as an act of self-defense.  

On Treachery:

Based on the records, Macaspac utterance was threat of an impending attack. Shortly thereafter, Macaspac returned to the group wielding the knife, immediately confronted and directly taunted Jebulan and quickly stabbed the latter on the chest, and then fled. The attack, even if it was sudden, did not constitute treachery. He did not mount the attack with surprise because the heated argument between him and the victim and his angry threat of going back "to sweep them" had sufficiently forewarned the latter of the impending lethal assault.

On Evident Premeditation:

The first and second elements of evident premeditation were thereby established. But it is the essence of this circumstance that the execution of the criminal act be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolve to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at calm judgment. Was the lapse of time between the determination and execution­ matter of three minutes, based on the records-sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act? By quickly returning to the group with the knife, he let no appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon his resolve to carry out his criminal intent. It was as if the execution immediately followed the resolve to commit the crime. As such, the third requisite was absent.

Without the Prosecution having sufficiently proved the attendance of either treachery or evident premeditation, Macaspac was guilty only of homicide for the killing of Jebulan.

Crime Committed by the Appellant:

Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

❌Self-defense

Self-defense, requires three (3) elements, namely:

(a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;

(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and

(c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

❌Treachery

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means and methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

Two conditions must concur in order for treachery to be appreciated, namely:

one, the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and

two, said means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant.

Treachery, whenever alleged in the information and competently and clearly proved, qualifies the killing and raises it to the category of murder.

❌Evident Premeditation

The requisites for the appreciation of evident premeditation are: 

(1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime;

(2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to commit the crime; and 

(3) the lapse of sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

The qualifying circumstance of premeditation can be satisfactorily established only if it could be proved that the defendant had ample and sufficient time to allow his conscience to overcome the determination of his will, if he had so desired, after meditation and reflection, following his plan to commit the crime. In other words, the qualifying circumstance of premeditation can be taken into account only when there had been cold and deep meditation, and tenacious persistence in the accomplishment of the criminal act. But when the determination to commit the crime was immediately followed by execution, the circumstance of premeditation cannot be legally considered.

Recit Version:

Facts:

The case involved accused-appellant Macaspac, who was arrested after being at large for 15 years, for stabbing Jebulan to death in 1988. Macaspac was having drinks with his friends when an argument ensued between him and Jebulan. 

Macaspac left the group but returned with a knife, and after confronting and taunting Jebulan, stabbed him on the lower right area of his chest. Macaspac initially invoked self-defense but later claimed that Jebulan accidentally fell on the knife after being hit with a wooden chair.

Appellate Court: Guilty of murder. Qualified by treachery.

Issue:

WoN the CA erred in affirming his conviction for murder on the ground that the Prosecution did not establish his guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

Guilty of homicide.

Penalty: Reclusion Temporal

On Self-defense:  

Jebulan had not engaged in any unlawful aggression against Macaspac. Instead, Jebulan was already running away from the scene when Macaspac stabbed him.  Hence, granting that Jebulan was initially the aggressor, appellant's testimony shows that said unlawful aggression already ceased when appellant stabbed him. Clearly, appellant's act of stabbing said victim would no longer be justified as an act of self-defense.  

On Treachery: 

The attack, even if it was sudden, did not constitute treachery. He did not mount the attack with surprise because the heated argument between him and the victim and his angry threat of going back "to sweep them" had sufficiently forewarned the latter of the impending lethal assault.

On Evident Premeditation: 

Was the lapse of time between the determination and execution­ matter of three minutes, based on the records-sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act? By quickly returning to the group with the knife, he let no appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon his resolve to carry out his criminal intent. It was as if the execution immediately followed the resolve to commit the crime. As such, the third requisite was absent.

Without the Prosecution having sufficiently proved the attendance of either treachery or evident premeditation, Macaspac was guilty only of homicide for the killing of Jebulan.