People v. Corpin

 

People v. Corpin

G.R. No. 232493

June 19, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted Cesar Villamor Corpin for the crime of Murder under Art. 248 of the RPC. at around 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon of September 1, 2010, while she was tending to her vegetable stall in Las Pifias Public Market, she saw Kuya Bay, herein accused-appellant Corpin, kill Kuya Paulo; accused-appellant Corpin sold pork in the public market while Paulo was a  chicken vendor; their stalls were situated at the back of each other and had the same entrance and exit; prior to the hacking incident, accused-appellant Corpin and Paulo were always joking at each other; Paulo often said "Ang baho" which made accused-appellant Corpin frown as he thought he was the one being alluded to; there was no provocation on the part of Ptiulo at the time the hacking incident happened; accused-appellant Corpin and the victim were not facing each other and the latter was in no position to defend himself; she was one (1) meter away from them; after accused-appellant Corpin hacked Paulo, the victim was able to get a  knife but the former embraced him; at that juncture, one of the meat vendors, Kuya Kris, arrived and pushed accused-appellant Corpin away from Paulo; and, Paulo ran away for about three (3) meters and fell down in front of the canteen, in front of Raymundo's stall.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in affirming Corpin’s conviction for Murder.

HELD:

                Yes. 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. To qualify an offense, the following conditions must exist: (1) 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 (2) said means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant.

                First, although the attack was sudden and unexpected as he was hacked from behind, the prosecution did not prove that Corpin deliberately chose the particular mode of attack he used to ensure the execution of the criminal purpose without any risk to himself. As testified by the witnesses of the prosecution, the incident happened in a public market where there were numerous other people, including the witnesses, who could have offered their help. In a similar case, the Court held that when aid is  easily available to the victim, such as when the attendant circumstances show that there were several eyewitnesses to the incident, no treachery could be appreciated because if the accused indeed consciously adopted the particular means he used to insure the facilitation of the crime, he could have chosen another place or time. Moreover, after he was attacked by Corpin, Paulo was able to run away and escape, which shows that the victim had the opportunity to defend himself. Second, Corpin did not deliberately seek the presence of the victim. As testified by the prosecution witnesses and Corpin himself, he and Paulo have been working as meat vendors in the same public market for several years. In addition, the weapon he used to kill the victim was a butcher's knife that he regularly used for his work. In this connection, the Court ruled in another case that the fact that the victim and the accused were already within the same vicinity when the attack happened and that the accused did not deliberately choose the particular weapon he used to kill the victim as he merely picked it up from within his reach is proof that there is no treachery involved. Wherefore, Corpin, guilty of Homicide.