PEOPLE VS.

LAGMAN
G.R. No. 197807 | April 16, 2012

Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against
persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from
the defense which the offended party might make.

VELASCO JR., J.

FACTS: Donna Maniego recounted that she was seated alongside her mother, Violeta Sicor, inside the
sidecar of a motorcycle. Without warning, the CECILIA LAGMAN approached her (Donna) and punched
her face several times. LAGMAN then turned on Vioeta, grabbed her and stabbed her in the middle of her
buttocks with a small knife. Donna got out of the sidecar and ran to the barangay hall for help. Upon
finding that the barangay chairman was not around, Donna went to check on her common-law spouse,
Jondel Santiago at the house of his mother. On her way there, she saw the LAGMAN stab Jondel four
times. Jondel expired from the wounds inflicted by LAGMAN.

While Donna was at the hospital, she saw LAGMAN, who was being treated after an angry crowd mauled
her. Donna informed the policeman who was escorting LAGMAN that it was the latter who had stabbed
and killed Jondel. LAGMAN was then arrested.

CECILIA LAGMAN was charged under two Informations for the Murder of Jondel Santiago and the
Frustrated Murder of Violeta Sicor.

LAGMAN stated that she got angry with Donna when she eloped with Jondel. However, she denied killing
Jondel. She averred that nothing was found on her body when she was frisked and the knife recovered by
PO3 Alateit was not hers and that there were other people in the area where it was found. She added that
she had an argument only with Donna, not with Violata or Jondel.

The RTC convicted LAGMAN of Murder (Jondel Santiago) and Less Serious Physical Injuries (Violeta
Sicor). The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC.

Hence, this appeal. The defense points out that the victim Jondel Santiago was 58 in height and of
average built while LAGMAN is only 411. It is, thus, incredible that she could have inflicted fatal wounds
on the victim. Moreover, it is averred that the prosecution was unable to prove that the killing of Jondel
was accompanied by treachery.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present?

HELD:

Qualifying circumstance of treachery present.

Paragraph 16, Art. 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or
forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) LAGMAN consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.

The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and
unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.
These elements were present when LAGMAN stabbed Jondel Santiago. As observed by the Court of
Appeals, the victim was caught off guard when the , without warning, stabbed him four times successively
leaving the latter no chance at all to evade the knife thrusts and defend himself from the onslaught. Thus,
there is no denying that LAGMANS act of suddenly stabbing the victim leaving the latter no room for
defense is a clear case of treachery.

Regardless of the alleged disparity in height between LAGMAN and the victim, LAGMANS method of
inflicting harm ensured that she would fatally wound Santiago without risk to herself. The perceived
advantage of the victim in terms of height was of no use to him as LAGMAN employed treachery in
attacking him. He was not afforded a means to defend himself as LAGMAN suddenly started stabbing him
repeatedly with an improvised knife.

SUMMARY FORMAT

Q: While riding a tricycle, Donna Maniego and her mother Violeta Sicor was suddenly and deliberately
attacked by CECILIA LAGMAN. During the chaos, Donna ran towards the home of her common-law
spouse Jondel Santiago. When she arrived however, she witnessed CECILIA stabbing Jondel several
times which caused his death. Was the crime committed by CECILIA accompanied by treachery?

A: Yes, the qualifying circumstance of treachery present. Paragraph 16, Art. 14 of the RPC defines
treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against
persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from
the defense which the offended party might make.

In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) LAGMAN consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.

The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and
unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.

These elements were present when LAGMAN stabbed Jondel Santiago. As observed by the Court of
Appeals, the victim was caught off guard when the , without warning, stabbed him four times successively
leaving the latter no chance at all to evade the knife thrusts and defend himself from the onslaught. Thus,
there is no denying that LAGMANS act of suddenly stabbing the victim leaving the latter no room for
defense is a clear case of treachery.

Regardless of the alleged disparity in height between LAGMAN and the victim, LAGMANS method of
inflicting harm ensured that she would fatally wound Santiago without risk to herself. The perceived
advantage of the victim in terms of height was of no use to him as LAGMAN employed treachery in
attacking him. He was not afforded a means to defend himself as LAGMAN suddenly started stabbing him
repeatedly with an improvised knife. (People v. Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012)