“BAWAL UMIHI DITO” :D (Tickler)

PEOPLE v. VILBAR

Version of the Prosecution

 The prosecution presented the testimonies of Maria Liza Patricio, the widow of the deceased,
and Pedro Luzon.
 According to Maria Liza: in the evening of May 5, 2000, she and her child was at their store
located in the public market. At around 7PM, her husband (the victim), Guilbert Patricio
arrived from work.
 Guilbert noticed a man urinating at one of the tables in front of their store. The man urinating
was among those engaged in a drinking spree in a store in which the accused was with the
same group
 Guilbert immediately admonished the man urinating but the latter paid no attention and
continued relieving himself
 Guilbert, who was carrying his child, put down the child. And then suddenly, the accused rose
from his seat, approached Guilbert, drew out a knife and stabbed him below his breast.
 The accused and his companions scampered away while Guilbert called for help saying “I’m
stabbed”
 Guilbert was immediately brought to the hospital where he later expired that same evening
 Pedro, one of he eyewitnesses, corroborated Maria Liza’s testimonial accounts of the events
 Pedro further asserted that the area’s illumination was “intense” because of the big white
lamp and that he was certain that it was the accused who attacked Guilbert

Version of the Defense

 Denial was the accused’s main plea
 He claimed that in the evening of May 5, 2000, he and his wife went to the market to collect
receivables out of the sale of meat
 They chanced upon his wife’s acquaintances who were engaged in a drinking spree while
singing videoke and invited them to join
 Among the group were Dodong Danieles and his younger brother
 While they were drinking, Dodong had an altercation with Guilbert which stemmed from
Dodong’s younger brother urinating at the Patricio’s store premises
 Suddenly, Dodong assaulted Guilbert and stabbed him
 The accused fled for fear of being implicated
 Thereafter, he went to the hospital to verify the victim’s condition
 He further contends that the parents of Dodong persuaded him not to help the victim’s family

Crime charged
 Murder

Ruling of the RTC

 RTC Ruling: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER
 Penalty:
o imprisonment of reclusion perpetua
o Civil indemnity – P75,000.00
o Medical expenses – P3,000.00
o Moral damages – P50,000.00
Ruling of the CA
 CA Ruling: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE
o The court did not find that treachery attended the stabbing of Guilbert
 Penalty:
o penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen
years and eight months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum
o civil indemnity – P50,000.00
o moral damages – P50,000.00
o actual damages – P3,000.00

Ruling of the SC
 SC Ruling: Guilty of HOMICIDE
o The accused is guilty only of homicide, and not of murder, because of the absence of
the qualifying circumstance of treachery
o The meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done
impulsively, there is no treachery even if the attack was sudden and unexpected
o Treachery cannot be presumed from the mere suddenness of the attack and cannot
be appreciated if the accused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased
o In the instant case, the accused attacked Guilbert suddenly and unexpectedly, but
failed to prove that accused-appellant consciously adopted such mode of attack to
facilitate the perpetration of killing without risk to himself:
 The incident happened in an open area in the presence of the victim’s family
and eyewitnesses
 It happened in a public market at 7pm
 The place was well-lighted and teeming with people
 Hence, treachery is absent
 Penalty:
o Guilty of HOMICIDE
o Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, imprisonment of twelve (12)
years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of
reclusion temporal, as maximum
o Moral damages: P50,000.00
o Civil indemnity: P50,000.00
o Temperate damages: P25,000.00