Title
People vs. Lumahang y Talisay
Case
G.R. No. 218581
Decision Date
Mar 27, 2019
Lumahang convicted of Homicide for Velitario's death and Slight Physical Injuries for Pornelos' stabbing; treachery unproven, voluntary surrender mitigated penalty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 218581)

Applicable Law

  • The decision primarily hinges on the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant provisions in the Revised Penal Code concerning homicide and physical injuries.

Factual Background

Two informations were filed against Lumahang, accusing him of murder for the killing of Velitario and slight physical injuries for stabbing Pornelos. The initial incident occurred on December 14, 2008, during a wake when Lumahang, allegedly enraged, attacked Pornelos from behind and then turned on Velitario, inflicting multiple stab wounds leading to Velitario's death. Pornelos sustained a non-fatal stab wound requiring a week of treatment.

Prosecution's Version

The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony from Alberto Poraso, who testified about witnessing the attacks. Poraso asserted that Lumahang approached Pornelos and stabbed him before swiftly turning to stab Velitario multiple times. Medical examinations confirmed the severity of Velitario's injuries, which ultimately led to his death.

Defense's Version

Lumahang's defense was centered on self-defense and defense of relative claims. He alleged that he was merely defending his cousin LL against harassment from a group, which resulted in a physical altercation. He denied any intent to kill and claimed he was attacked first, sustaining injuries in the process.

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC convicted Lumahang for murder and less serious physical injuries based primarily on Poraso's testimony, which it found credible. The court emphasized the unexpected and sudden nature of the attacks, qualifying them under the circumstances of treachery, particularly for Velitario's murder.

Ruling of the CA

The CA affirmed the RTC's decision while modifying Lumahang's conviction for the injuries inflicted on Pornelos to slight physical injuries, citing the lack of intent to kill as inferred from the nature of the injuries.

Issues Raised

  • Whether the CA erred in convicting Lumahang despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Whether the CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the attack on Velitario.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court partially granted Lumahang's appeal, affirming his conviction for homicide instead of murder, determining that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not present in the killing of Velitario. The Court found that while the attack on Pornelos demonstrated treachery, the attack on Velitario was more frontal and did not meet the threshold of treachery since Velitario could have perceived the danger and had an opportunity to flee.

Clarification on Guilt

The Court upheld the CA's findings regarding the weight of the prosecution's evidence, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitness testimony over Lumahang's defense, which it deemed weak and unsubstantiated.

Examination of Treachery

The Court critiqued the CA's rationale in affirming treachery based on the suddenness of the attacks, stating that treachery requires not only suddenness but the element of ensuring that the victim cannot defend themselves. The Court concluded that Velitario's failure to react did

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.