You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

169246 January 26, 2007

PEOPLE vs. NICOLAS GUZMAN y BOCBOSILA.

Facts:

 On Nov. 25, 1999, appellant and two other persons are having a drinking spree in front of a grocery store at
Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City. Michael, the victim, passed by in front of the said grocery store.
Suddenly, appellant and his two companions approached and surrounded Michael. They repeatedly stabbed
Michael with a knife which causes the death of Michael. True names and identities of the two other persons
remained unknown.

 In building its case, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of its witnesses, namely:
o Ronald Santiago- witness- jeepney driver and resident of Brgy. Commonwealth, Quezon City.
o Edgardo Bauto – witness;-a tricycle driver and resident of Brgy. Commonwealth, Quezon City.
o Danilo Balber (Danilo)- Michael’s father;
o Police Inspector Alberto Malaza - a member of the police force assigned at Police Community
Precinct No. 1, Batasan Hills
o SPO3 Samuel Quinto (SPO3 Quinto)- police investigator at the Batasan Hills Police Station 6. He
was the one who investigated the incident.
o Dr. Francisco Supe, Jr. –medico legal who examined the body of Michael

 Appellant testified that on the day of incident, he was inside his store when he heard shouts outside. He saw
that Jesus was having fights with Danilo and Ronald. Michael arrived at the scene. Lemuel then came to
rescue Jesus but Michael blocked his way- the two wrestled. Moments later, he saw Lemuel holding a knife
and his hands were bloodied. Michael, on the other hand, was lying on the ground. Lemuel and Jesus, were
appellant’s bus conductor and driver, respectively. Appellant narrated that he went outside to observe the
situation. When the policemen couldn’t find Jesus and Lemuel, he was invited to the police station. From
then on, the policemen held him in custody.

 On 12 November 2001, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting appellant of murder and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death . CA ruled that the correct penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Issue: Whether or Not the lower court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of Treachery

Held: The ruling of the RTC in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of Treachery is correct. The correct
penalty is reclusion perpetua.

In the instant case, treachery was alleged in the Information against appellant.37 Moreover, all the essential
elements/conditions of treachery were established and proven during the trial. The suddenness and
unexpectedness of the attack of appellant and his two companions rendered Michael defenseless,
vulnerable and without means of escape. It appears that Michael was unarmed and alone at the time of the
attack. Further, he was merely seventeen years of age then. 38 In such a helpless situation, it was absolutely
impossible for Michael to escape or to defend himself against the assault of appellant and his two
companions. Being young and weak, Michael is certainly no match against adult persons like appellant and
his two companions. Michael was also outnumbered since he had three assailants, and, was unarmed when
he was stabbed to death. Appellant and his two companions took advantage of their size, number, and
weapon in killing Michael. They also deliberately adopted means and methods in exacting the cruel death
of Michael by first surrounding him, then grabbing his shoulders and overpowering him. Afterwards, each
of them repeatedly stabbed Michael with a knife at the stomach until the latter fell lifeless to the ground.
The stab wounds sustained by Michael proved to be fatal as they severely damaged the latter’s large
intestine.
The fact that the place where the incident occurred was lighted and many people were walking then in
different directions does not negate treachery. 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. As we earlier found, Michael was peacefully walking and not provoking anyone to
a fight when he was stabbed to death by appellant and his two companions. Further, Michael was a minor at
the time of his death while appellant and his two companions were adult persons.

You might also like