Case People vs. Pugay, G.R. No.

L-74324, 14 November 1988

Facts The deceased, a retardate and accused Pugay were friends. During the town
fiesta, accused Pugay and Samson together with their companions who
appeared to be drunk saw the victim walking nearby then they started making
fun of him.
Pigay suddenly took a can of gasoline under the engine of the ferris wheel
and poured its contents to the victim then the Samson set the victim on fire
making a human torch out of him.
Both accused were charged with the crime of murder with the qualifying
circumstance of treachery.
Pugay admitted that he poured the can of gasoline to the deceased believing
that it was water. Samson alleged that he saw Pugay pour gasoline to the
deceased but did not see who set him on fire.
The trial court found them guilty of the said crime,

Issue Whether the court erred in finding them guilty with the crime of murder.

Ruling Yes. With respect to the criminal liability of Pugay, the Court held that he
failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid any undesirable
consequence arising from any act of his companions, the accused is guilty of
homicide through reckless imprudence.
With respect to Samson, the Court did not agree that his conviction of murder
is proper like what the Solicitor General contends. That considering the acts
of Samson,, the latter in setting the deceased on fire knowing that the
gasoline had just poured onto the victim, it was attended by treachery.
There is entire absence of proof that accused Samson had some reason to
kill the victim before the incident. On the contrary, there is adequate evidence
that his act was merely a part of their fun making that evening. For the
circumstance of treachery to exist, the attack must be deliberate and the
culprit employed means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from any defense which the offended party might make.
There can be no doubt that the accused Samson knew very well that the
liquid poured on the victim was gasoline. Giving him the benefit of the doubt,
it can be conceded that as part of their fun making he merely intended to set
the clothes of the deceased’s on fire. Guilty of homicide.

Doctrine