Murder, A248 Revised Penal Code

1. Concept and legal basis

2. Elements of the offense

Elements of the offense:

1) That a person was killed;

2) That the accused killed him;

3) That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and

4) That the killing is not parricide or infanticide. (People v. Kalipayan, G.R. No. 229829, 22 January 2018)

a. A person was killed

The fact of A person being killed must be duly proven.

b. Accused killed decedent

It must be established that the accused killed the decedent.

c. Qualifying circumstances

1) Treachery

1) With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity (Article 248[1], Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code)

Elements of the offense:

1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and,

2) That said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. (Ibid.)

Treachery. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked. A swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim is an indication that treachery is present. (Ibid.)

Same; Impossible to defend. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. In that sense, even attacks that occur from the front may be considered treacherous if the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for self-defense. (Ibid.)

Same; Consciously adopted. The mode of attack must also be consciously adopted. The accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. The attack, then, must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. (Ibid.)

People v. Saez, En Banc, G.R. No. L-15776, 29 March 1961

• The evidence for the prosecution shows: that at about 8:00 p.m. on March 9, 1955, appellant, armed with a rifle, was out patrolling their coconut plantation at Darung, Sta. Gruz, province of Davao, with Prudencio Esmalia, Entrino Alejandro and Juanito Purol; that when they saw two men inside the plantation, appellant asked them who they were, and upon receiving no answer, he fired several shots at them — one of them was killed, while the other was able to escape unharmed; that before midnight of the same day, Prudencio Esmalia and Roman Catian, following the instruction of appellant to dispose of the dead body, placed the same in the rear compartment of appellant’s family car and drove to sitio Hagonoy where they dumped the corpse in a dry well inside the Christiansen plantation; that while returning to Darung at about 6:00 o’clock the following morning, the car ran out of gas and Catian bought some gasoline at the station of Francisco Tan in Sta. Cruz with the money given by appellant’s brother, Maximo Saez; that upon their arrival at Darung at about 7:00 o’clock the same morning, they deposited the car in the garage of Saez residence; that a few days after the incident, Catian and Esmalia were investigated by the Philippine Constabulary and revealed where they revealed where they concealed the body, which turned out to be that of Agripino Patrimonio.

• As to whether the crime committed by appellant is murder or simple homicide, we are of the opinion that it was only the latter. The fact that he asked the ceased Patrimonio and Guisansana to identify themselves before firing at them shows that there was no treachery in the commission of the offense. In People vs. Tumab, G.R. No. L-2300, May 27, 1949, it was held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot logically be appreciated against the accused because the latter did not make any preparation to kill the deceased so as to insure the commission of the crime making it at the same time impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. Moreover, that, as in this case, the attack was sudden did not constitute alevosia because of lack of evidence showing that the aggressor consciously adopted a mode of attack intended to facilitate the commission of the crime without risk unto himself. To the contrary, that he gave Patrimonio and Guisansana the opportunity to identify themselves before firing the fatal shots not only negatives this requirement but also shows that he gave the man opportunity to defend themselves or to return any attack coming from him.

2) Price, reward, promise

3) Inundation, fire, poison, etc.

People v. Bernardino, En Banc, G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008

•[T]he single act of accused-appellant — burning the house of Manuel Salvador, with the main objective of killing the latter and his daughter, Analyn Salvador, resulting in their deaths — resulted in the complex crime of double murder. Under Article 248 of the RPC, murder is committed by means of fire. Since the maximum penalty imposed for murder was death, when the case was pending in the CA, the CA correctly imposed the penalty of death for the complex crime of double murder instead of the two death penalties imposed by the RTC for two counts of murder. In view, however, of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346 (otherwise known as “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”), we reduce the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole.

4) Calamities

5) Evident premeditation

Elements of the offense:

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; and,

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. (People v. Kalipayan, supra.)

6) Cruelty

d. Killing is not parricide or infanticide

3. Complex crime

a. Double murder

PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO, En Banc, G.R. No. 168050, 19 September 2008

•[T]he single act of accused-appellant — burning the house of Manuel Salvador, with the main objective of killing the latter and his daughter, Analyn Salvador, resulting in their deaths — resulted in the complex crime of double murder.

People v. Unuh Bakang, En Banc, G.R. No. L-20908, 31 January 1969

•Late in the evening of June 10, 1959, nine Muslim bandits carrying bladed weapons and firearms met in the house of one Miutong located at Candiis, Lamitan, Basilan City. They took an early supper and conversed until late in the evening, when they left and boarded two vintas in the direction of Pe-ek, same district and City. At about 10:00 o’clock of the same evening, the bandits arrived at Pe-ek and went direct to the house of Paleng Toto which they entered unannounced. Once inside the house, they fired two shots into the air, waking up the inmates of the house. One of the bandits lighted a native lamp. They then hogtied the inmates of the house, ransacked their pockets for valuables, and hacked them with bladed weapons on vital parts of their bodies. The bandits then left the house. Shortly after, two of the victims, Paleng Toto and Mahajaril Toto, were found dead, while three other victims, Kapek, Sabu Paleng and Enjeng, were found to be still alive although gravely wounded. These victims were taken to a hospital at Isabela, Basilan City, where due to timely medical care for about three weeks, they were saved from death. The medical certificates, Exhibits “A” and “C”, described the wounds inflicted upon Paleng Toto and Mahajaril Toto, respectively, and the causes of their deaths were as follows: re Paleng Toto, “1. Wound, incised, 2-½ in. long, superficial, back, left side, upper portion. 2. Wound, incised, 4 in. long and 2 in. deep, neck, left side. 3. Wound, incised, 10 in. long, penetrating the abdominal cavity, abdomen, hypochondriac region, right side, portion of large intestines protruding. 4. Wound, incised, 2-½ in. long and ½ in. deep, wrist, right. The cause of death of the above named deceased Moro Paleng Toto was Acute Anemia, Secondary hemorrhage, Multiple wounds;” re Mahajaril Toto, “Wound, incised, 10 in. long, penetrating the thoracic cavity, shoulder and back, left side. (From clavicle, left side to scapula, right side.) The cause of death of the above named deceased Mahajaril Toto was Acute Anemia, Secondary hemorrhage, wound penetrating the thoracic cavity, shoulder and back, left side.” The wounds inflicted upon the other three victims are described in medical certificates Exhibits “H”, “I” and “J”, as follows: Exhibit “H”, re Kapek, “Hacking wound, occipito-parietal, left head. Hacking wound, parietal, left head. Hacking wound, arm, right. Healing time, barring complications, 2 weeks;” Exhibit “I”, re Sabu Paleng, “Hacking wound, dorsum, right hand. Hacking wound, shoulder, right. Healing time, barring complications, 2 weeks;” and Exhibit “J”, re Moro Enjeng, “Hacking wounds, back. Hacking wound, right arm. Hacking wound, knee, right. Healing time, barring complications, 2 weeks.” The bandits duly identified were Baeng Tungol, Unuh Bakang, Malonzo, Indanan Tarang, Awaron Nalun, Elias Taupan, Endo Sahim and Abirin. The ninth bandit was not identified and was referred to as John Doe.

•The lower court found the defendants, Indanan Tarang and Unuh Bakang, guilty as principals. The finding is correct, it being clear, from the evidence that there was conspiracy or previous concert of criminal design.

• The trial court held that there was treachery because the victims were hog-tied and defenseless when some of the bandits hacked them with bladed weapons on vital parts of their bodies. The trial court was correct in so holding.

• However, the lower court erred in finding the defendants, Indanan Tarang and Unuh Bakang, guilty of “double murder, with multiple frustrated murder,” that is, of complex crimes. The crimes were not complex because there were different acts of hacking performed by different bandits. For this reason Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code on complex crimes is not applicable. (People vs. Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968.) There were, therefore, two distinct murders and three distinct frustrated murders and the two defendants are criminally liable for each and every one of them.

References

⦁ Title 8 – Crimes Against Persons, Book 2, Revised Penal Code

/Updated: January 18, 2023