PEOPLE v. MACASPAC

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs RODRIGO MACASPAC

G.R. No. 198954

February 22, 2017

FACTS

At around 8:00 in the evening of July 7, 1988, Macaspac along with four other persons including one Robert Jebulan. In the course of their drinking spree, an argument ensued between Macaspac and Jebulan. It became so heated that, Macaspac uttered to the group: “Hintayin nyo ako d’yan, wawalisin ko kayo, “and then left. After around three minutes, Macaspac returned wielding a knife. He confronted and taunted Jubulan, 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. The others witnessed the stabbing of Jebulan. He was rushed to the hospital but was rushed dead on arrival.

Macaspac initially invoked self-defense, testifying that he and Jebulan had scuffed for the possession of the knife, and that he had then stabbed Jebulan once he seized control of the knife. However, he later on 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, which he insisted had been between Barcomo and one Danny. According to him, he tried to pacify their argument, but his efforts angered Jebulan, who draw out the knife and tried to stab him. He fortunately evaded the stab thrust of Jebulan, whom he struck with a wooden chair to defend himself. The blow caused Jebulan to fall on the knife, puncturing his chest.

On February 19, 2008, the RTC found Macaspac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the CA affirmed conviction of Macaspac with modification of the imposition of the civil liability. The case elevated to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming Macaspac’s conviction for murder on the ground that the Prosecution did not establish his guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD

The Court sees no misreading by the RTC and the CA of the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence of the parties. On the contrary, the CA correctly observed that inconsistencies had rendered Macaspac’s testimony doubtful as to shatter his credibility. The Court cannot uphold the CA’s conclusion on the attendance of treachery.

According to the facts, 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. 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, the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

The first and second requisites were 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 a calm judgment. By quickly returning to the group with a 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 a 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. Macaspac shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, eight months and 1 day of reclusion temporal.

Anent the liabilities, the Court deem a modification to be necessary to align with prevailing jurisprudence.

JLD