SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 268355, June 10, 2024 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO BANGUILAN Y GULAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
I concur in the verdict of conviction against accused-appellant Domingo Baguilan y Gulan (Domingo) but for murder, instead of homicide. I am of the view that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing.
The ponencia does not dispute the presence of the first requisite: at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend or retaliate. It, however, finds that the second one is lacking: the offender deliberately chose a form of attack which would render him immune from risk or retaliation by the victim.1
In ordaining that treachery may not be appreciated, it is posited that "the prosecution is still burdened to prove that the means were consciously adopted by Domingo in committing the crime – which it failed to do in this case. The records are bare of any attempt on the part of the prosecution to show how Domingo deliberately chose the manner on how he attacked John."2
I respectfully disagree.
The second requisite of treachery refers to the state of mind of the accused vis-ŕ-vis the manner of killing he or she employed, which cannot be definitely ascertained. Thus, since intention is a mental process or an internal state of mind, the accused's intention must be judged by his or her conduct and external overt acts.3 Here, Domingo's external overt acts clearly show that he deliberately chose to stab John Paloma (John) in fatal parts of his body to ensure his death.
The narration of facts, as culled from the eyewitnesses' accounts, clearly stated: the victim, John, was sitting and leaning on his manukan. He was oblivious, when Domingo suddenly stabbed him in his left neck with a balisong. Startled, John shouted, "Ah!". He was subsequently rushed to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. Per the autopsy, he sustained two fatal wounds: one on the left side of his neck, and one on his left upper back.ℒαwρhi৷
From the totality of these circumstances, no reasonable conclusion can be reached other than that Domingo deliberately chose his manner of attack to ensure the consummation of the crime. First. Domingo had, at the onset, been carrying with him a balisong. Second. Domingo's attacks were unprompted, since John was merely sitting and looking at his chickens, oblivious to John's impending attack. Third. The placement and gravity of John's wounds are most telling.(awÞhi( Domingo already stabbed John once in the left upper back. Thus, his second attack, this time, in another fatal part of the body—the neck—evinces an undeniable and determined effort by Domingo to kill John.
It would have been different if Domingo's attacks came at the spur of the moment, e.g., if there had been a prior altercation or a heated argument. Here, however, no circumstances suggest that Domingo's act of stabbing John in the back and the neck were spontaneous. On the contrary, his walking up to his victim, the suddenness of the attack, and the targeted parts of the body that were stabbed, all clearly show a deliberate and conscious decision on Domingo's part taken together with the manner by which he suddenly attacked the victim from behind.
I therefore vote that Domingo be found guilty of murder.
Footnotes
1 See People v. Magdaluyo, G.R. No. 232305, November 29, 2022 [Notice, First Division].
2 Ponencia, p. 7.
3 Wacoy v. Quibac, 761 Phil. 560, 572 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
