BAWAL UMIHI DITO

PEOPLE v. VILBAR

Version of the Prosecution

 The prosecution presented the testimonies of Maria Liza Patricio, the widow of the deceased, and Pedro Luzon.
 According to Maria Liza: in the evening of May 5, 2000, she and her child was at their store located in the public market.
At around 7PM, her husband (the victim), Guilbert Patricio arrived from work.
 Guilbert noticed a man urinating at one of the tables in front of their store. The man urinating was among those engaged
in a drinking spree in a store in which the accused was with the same group
 Guilbert immediately admonished the man urinating but the latter paid no attention and continued relieving himself
 Guilbert, who was carrying his child, put down the child. And then suddenly, the accused rose from his seat, approached
Guilbert, drew out a knife and stabbed him below his breast.
 The accused and his companions scampered away while Guilbert called for help saying “I’m stabbed”
 Guilbert was immediately brought to the hospital where he later expired that same evening
 Pedro, one of he eyewitnesses, corroborated Maria Liza’s testimonial accounts of the events
 Pedro further asserted that the area’s illumination was “intense” because of the big white lamp and that he was certain
that it was the accused who attacked Guilbert

Version of the Defense

 Denial was the accused’s main plea
 He claimed that in the evening of May 5, 2000, he and his wife went to the market to collect receivables out of the sale
of meat
 They chanced upon his wife’s acquaintances who were engaged in a drinking spree while singing videoke and invited
them to join
 Among the group were Dodong Danieles and his younger brother
 While they were drinking, Dodong had an altercation with Guilbert which stemmed from Dodong’s younger brother
urinating at the Patricio’s store premises
 Suddenly, Dodong assaulted Guilbert and stabbed him
 The accused fled for fear of being implicated
 Thereafter, he went to the hospital to verify the victim’s condition
 He further contends that the parents of Dodong persuaded him not to help the victim’s family

Crime charged
 Murder

Ruling of the RTC

 RTC Ruling: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER
 Penalty:
o imprisonment of reclusion perpetua
o Civil indemnity – P75,000.00
o Medical expenses – P3,000.00
o Moral damages – P50,000.00

Ruling of the CA
 CA Ruling: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE
o The court did not find that treachery attended the stabbing of Guilbert
 Penalty:
o penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months
of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum
o civil indemnity – P50,000.00
o moral damages – P50,000.00
o actual damages – P3,000.00

Ruling of the SC
 SC Ruling: Guilty of HOMICIDE
o The accused is guilty only of homicide, and not of murder, because of the absence of the qualifying
circumstance of treachery
BAWAL UMIHI DITO

o The meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done impulsively, there is no
treachery even if the attack was sudden and unexpected
o Treachery cannot be presumed from the mere suddenness of the attack and cannot be appreciated if the
accused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased
o In the instant case, the accused attacked Guilbert suddenly and unexpectedly, but failed to prove that accused-
appellant consciously adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of killing without risk to
himself:
 The incident happened in an open area in the presence of the victim’s family and eyewitnesses
 It happened in a public market at 7pm
 The place was well-lighted and teeming with people
 Hence, treachery is absent
 Penalty:
o Guilty of HOMICIDE
o Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, imprisonment of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum
o Moral damages: P50,000.00
o Civil indemnity: P50,000.00
o Temperate damages: P25,000.00