Title
People vs. Ronald Paradero Aporado
Case
G.R. No. 264913
Decision Date
Feb 5, 2024
Ronald Paradero Aporado was convicted of murder for stabbing Amado Halasan. The CA upheld the conviction, citing treachery, but the Supreme Court ruled the killing was impulsive and reduced it to homicide.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176944)

Charges and Initial Proceedings

Ronald was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) after he allegedly stabbed Amado multiple times during a drinking spree. The prosecution alleged that Ronald attacked Amado with premeditation and treachery, suggesting he had an intent to kill. Ronald pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.

Factual Background of the Incident

During the drinking session, Ronald was mocked by his companions, including Amado, which provoked a reaction. After being instructed to go home by his sister due to his intoxicated state, Ronald returned to the gathering, where he attempted to assault Amado physically. Upon noticing Ronald had a knife, one companion fled, and Ronald proceeded to stab Amado repeatedly while he was asleep. Ronald later boasted about his actions, asserting he had killed before.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Ronald of murder on January 3, 2019, ruling that treachery was present as Ronald attacked Amado while the latter was defenseless and not anticipating the assault. Ronald was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages to Amado's heirs.

Court of Appeals Affirmation

The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC’s decision on November 18, 2020, rejecting Ronald’s claims for mitigating circumstances related to passion, provocation, and voluntary surrender. The appellate court maintained that the act was treacherous and not a spontaneous reaction to provocation.

Motion for Reconsideration

Ronald filed a motion for reconsideration, disputing the presence of treachery. The CA denied this motion on April 20, 2022, reiterating that the attack was sudden and unexpected, and affirmed that the conditions for treachery were met as Amado was asleep and unsuspecting.

Analysis of Legal Arguments

Ronald contended that the prosecution failed to prove treachery and asserted he was entitled to mitigating circumstances due to provocation. The court emphasized that the burden of proof shifts to the accused once they admit to the act of killing. Examining the elements of treachery, the court noted that to qualify an action as treacherous, the accused must consciously adopt a method of attack that ensures no risk from the victim's potential retaliation. Here, Ronald's response was deemed impulsive and reactive, fueled by provocation from his peers.

Provocation and Mitigating Circumstances

The court found that while the mockery was demeaning, it did not rise to the level of sufficient provocation to mitigate Ronald's liability. The aggravating nature of the mockery contrasted with the requirements for sufficient provocation set forth in Article 13 of the RPC, which requires immediate and proportionate responses.

Passion and Obfuscation

The court ruled that Ronald’s emotional state did not warrant the consideration of passion and obfuscation as mitigating circumstances. The mockery he received did not constitute an unlawful act capable of triggering sufficient emotional distress that led to the stabbing.

Evaluation of Voluntary Surrender

Ronald could not

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.