1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FRUSTRATED

PAGE

People vs Malabago
G.R. No. 115686 / 265 SCRA 198
December 2, 1996

People vs Escandor
G.R. No. 95049 / 265 SCRA 444
December 9, 1996

People vs Estanislao
G.R. No. 118079 / 265 SCRA 810
December 24, 1996

People vs Escoto
G.R. No. 91756 / 244 SCRA 382
May 11, 1995

US vs Balagtas
No. 6432 / 19 Phil 164
March 22, 1911

People vs Real
G.R. No. 93436 / 242 SCRA 671
March 24, 1995

People vs. Ganzagan, Jr.

G.R. No. 113793 / 247 SCRA 220
August 11, 1995

People vs. Tabarnero and Tabarnero

GR No. 168169
February 24, 2010

People vs. Zulieta aka Bogarts

GR No. 192183
November 11, 2013

10

TREACHERY
People vs Malabago
G.R. No. 115686 / 265 SCRA 198
December 2, 1996
Facts:
On January 5, 1994, at about 7:00 in the evening, Guillerma Romano, appellant's mother-in-law,
was tending her sari-sari store in Barangay Gulayon, Dipolog City when her daughter Letecia Romano
Malabago, arrived and sat on one of the benches outside the store. A few minutes later, accused-appellant
came and interrupted his wife and mother-in-law's conversation and began arguing. Suddenly, Guillerma
heard a loud sound and she thought that appellant slapped Letecia on the face but she saw Letecia's face
bloodied with a slash along her right ear and Appellant was facing Letecia, and with a bolo in his hand,
struck her again, this time hitting the lower left side of her face, from the lips down to the neck which then
caused her instantaneous death. Appellant fled to Dodong Opulentisima's house, called the police, fetched
appellant, brought him to their station and was placed in jail.
Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Ruling:
No. For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of
execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim,
giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of execution
were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender. It is true that appellant hacked his wife who was
then unarmed and had no opportunity to defend herself. However, the evidence does not show that
appellant deliberately and consciously employed this particular mode of attack to ensure the killing of the
victim. The unembroidered facts reveal that appellant hacked his wife in the midst of a sudden, unscripted
heated argument.

TREACHERY
People vs Escandor
G.R. No. 95049 / 265 SCRA 444
December 9, 1996
Facts:
On 02 December 1988, at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning , the victim Sabino Huelva Maglente
and his three (3) children Glenn, Madelyn and Gil were walking along a trail in Cagara, Baleno, Masbate
from their house towards their farm located in Sitio Banayong, Baleno, Masbate when they met appellants,
father and son Fidel and Nestor Escandor, who were walking towards the opposite direction. As the two
groups passed each other, appellant Nestor Escandor suddenly and without any warning shot the victim in
the back and when the victim tried to get up, he was again shot at, this time by the other appellant, Fidel,
hitting the victim in the upper right breast and causing him to slump to the ground . Glenn Huelva
immediately rushed home to inform his mother, Erlinda Huelva, that his father was killed by appellants and
without wasting time, Erlinda and Glenn went to seek the help of a barangay councilman of Cagara,
Ernesto Rapsing, who accompanied them to the scene of the crime. Upon arrival at the scene of the crime,
they found the victim already dead.
Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Ruling:
Yes. The qualifying circumstance of treachery appreciated in view of the fact that the initial assault
on the victim was made from behind and was unexpected. From the foregoing, it is beyond doubt that
appellants are guilty of murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery in view of the fact is that the initial
assault on Sabino was made from behind and was unexpected. Appellants undoubtedly employed a
method in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to
themselves arising from the defense which Sabino might make.

TREACHERY
People vs Estanislao
G.R. No. 118079 / 265 SCRA 810
December 24, 1996
Facts:
The relationship between the Estanislaos and the Montejos had turned sour since 18 November
1989 when the victim had advised the Estanislaos to vacate the property of the Montejos that they were
occupying since the Montejos were going to use the property. On 11 January 1990, only a week before the
stabbing incident, the victim and Armando Estanislao had a fist fight where the latter was aided by the two
(2) other accused, Felino and Rogelio Estanislao but the fight was broken up by the timely arrival of police
officers which prevented the accused from further attacking the victim Sergio Montejo. On 19 January 1990
at around five o'clock in the afternoon inside the eatery owned by a certain Jun Badilla , while the victim
Sergio Montejo, Badilla and another unnamed person were drinking beer,the accused Rogelio Estanislao
arrived. When the victim Montejo stood up from the drinking session to relieve himself, accused Rogelio
Estanislao suddenly uttered, "Tara Sergio!" after which Rogelio suddenly stabbed the victim Sergio Montejo
and thereafter fled.
Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Ruling:
Yes. In order for Treachery to be appreciated the act must spark an attack that is deliberate,
sudden and unexpected. The presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery has been adequately
shown. The attack on Montejo although preceded by a warning ("Tara Sergio!) was undoubtedly sudden
and unexpected and prevented the unsuspecting victim, who had just stood up, from defending himself.

TREACHERY
People vs Escoto
G.R. No. 91756 / 244 SCRA 382
May 11, 1995
Facts:
On April 10, 1985, the brothers Wilfredo (Willie) and Dominador (Ogie) Escoto arrived at the
residence of Mabina Torno looking for Alfred Torno, the elder brother of Robert Torno who later became the
victim. Wilfredo and Dominador demanded to talk to Alfred but Mabina refused them entry into the house
and were thereby constrained to leave but, before departing, Wilfredo shouted a threatened to kill Alfred if
he saw the latter. Before the Escotos could reach the corner of Batangas Street, the Escoto brothers
chanced upon Robert Torno walking alone and without any warning, Wilfredo and Dominador pursued
Robert until they were able to catch up with him. Mabina, who was about 10 meters away from the scene,
saw Wilfredo stab Robert on the left chest with a fan knife then Dominador himself also stabbed Robert
although Mabina could not tell the specific number of times that Robert was stabbed, she was certain that
Dominador was holding Robert when Wilfredo stabbed the latter. Robert thereafter collapsed and fell on the
ground.
Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Ruling:
No. Treachery cannot be presumed merely from the fact that the attack was sudden. It cannot be
presumed that treachery was present merely from the fact that the attack was sudden. The suddenness of
an attack does not, of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long
as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victims helpless position was accidental. In fact, from the
reaction of Robert in running away from the Escoto brothers the moment he saw them, we can reasonably
conclude that he was not completely unaware that herein appellant and Willie posed a danger to him and
this necessarily put him on guard, with the opportunity to prevent or repel a possible assault. For treachery
to be appreciated, that circumstance must be present at the inception of the attack and, if absent and the
attack is continuous, treachery at a subsequent stage is not to be considered. Lastly, although the victim
sustained twelve stab wounds, some of them located at his back, it cannot be inferred that treachery was
initially present in the case at bar. It is not clear from the testimony Mabina whether or not the attack was
inceptively launched frontally or otherwise, or at what stage of the fight those wounds at the victims back
were inflicted. It is a fundamental rule of long standing that for treachery to be appreciated, that
circumstance must be present at the inception of the attack and, if absent and the attack is continuous,
treachery at a subsequent stage is not to be considered.

TREACHERY
US vs Balagtas
No. 6432 / 19 Phil 164
March 22, 1911
Facts:
About dark on the 4th day of May, 1910, the deceased, Simeon Flores, visited the house where the
defendants were living and about thirty minutes after arriving the deceased and the two defendants left the
house, going toward Gagalangin, passing along Calle Lemery. When the deceased and the two defendants
arrived at the place on Calle Gagalangin where the street car track crosses, the three turned and entered a
narrow street (callejn) which leads to the railroad track. When they were about ninety yards from any
house and while in an obscure place on the railroad track, at about eight o'clock at night, the deceased was
knocked down, and while down was struck two or three blows in the face and rendered practically
unconscious and while in this unconscious condition, but still groaning, the two defendants, one taking him
by the head and the other by the feet, carried him across the embankment, which was alongside the
railroad track, and threw him into a small pond of water, face downward. The deceased remained in that
position until the following day when his body was found there by the policemen Hartpence and Solis who
conducted the body to the morgue where it was later identified as that of Simeon Flores
Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Ruling:
No. The facts fail to show that there was present treachery, as the knocking down of the deceased,
striking him while on the ground, and throwing him into the water were all done in so short a time and one
movement followed the other in such rapid succession, constitute one and the same attack. In order that
treachery may be considered as a qualifying circumstance to raise the classification of the crime, or as an
aggravating circumstance to augment the penalty, it must be shown that the treacherous acts were present
at and preceded the commencement of the attack which caused the injury complained of. After the
commencement of such an attack and before its termination an accused person may have employed
means or methods which were of a treacherous character, and yet such means or methods would not
constitute the circumstance of alevosa. One continuous attack cannot be broken up into two or more parts
and made to constitute separate, distinct, and independent attacks so that treachery may be injected
therein and considered as a qualifying or aggravating circumstance.

TREACHERY
People vs Real
G.R. No. 93436 / 242 SCRA 671
March 24, 1995
Facts:
At about 9:00 A.M. on March 17, 1978, in the public market of Aroroy, Masbate, appellant and
Edgardo Corpuz, both vendors, engaged in a heated argument over the right to use the market table to
display their fish. Moreno de la Rosa, the Municipal Mayor, who happened to be at the public market, tried
to pacify them, saying that they were arguing over trivial matters. The two protagonists momentarily kept
their peace but after a while Corpuz raised his voice again and said something to appellant. When Corpus
kept on walking to and fro near the disputed fish table, appellant started to sharpen his bolo while
murmuring to himself. Once Corpus turned around with his back towards appellant, the latter hacked him
on the nape which the blow caused Corpus to collapse and was rushed to a medical clinic. A police
investigator went to the clinic to take the dying declaration of Corpus, who said that it was appellant who
stabbed him. Corpus died two days later.
Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Ruling:
Yes. As a rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if
such mode of attack was cooly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of
a chance to either fight or retreat. It is agreeable that the offense committed was homicide. He is entitled to
the benefit of the doubt as to whether he acted with alevosia when he attacked the victim. As a rule, a
sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was
cooly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or
retreat. The rule does not apply, however, where the attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted
but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of
the victim (People v. Aguiluz, 207 SCRA 187 [1992]). This is more so, where the assault upon the victim
was preceded by a heated exchange of words between him and the accused (People v. Rillorta, 180 SCRA
102 [1989]). In the case at bench, the assault came in the course of an altercation and after appellant had
sharpened his bolo in full view of the victim. Appellants act of sharpening his bolo can be interpreted as an
attempt to frighten the victim so the latter would leave him alone. It was simply foolhardy for the victim to
continue walking to and fro near appellant in a taunting manner while the latter was sharpening his bolo.

TREACHERY
People vs. Ganzagan, Jr.,
G.R. No. 113793 / 247 SCRA 220
August 11, 1995
Facts:
At around five oclock in the afternoon (5:00 p.m.) of April 1, 1988, while they were at home and
Marilou was then downstairs, preparing some bilo-bilo, while appellant was on the upper level of the house,
watching over their two-month-old infant daughter. Servillano Manuel, Jr., who was visibly upset, barged
into their house, looking for appellant but left hurriedly without waiting for appellant to come down and
returned armed with a bolo, with which he struck the house near the kitchen until when appellant
confronted Servillano who cursed and abruptly assaulted the former with the bolo. He delivered an
overhead hacking blow to appellant, who stepped back and parried the same with his right arm which the
tip of the bolo hit the appendage and produced a three-centimeter nick on it but appellant was able to wrest
the bolo away from him. In trying to grab the bolo back from appellant, Servillano stumbled and fell forward,
face down and with his backside pointing up. 32 It was then that appellant hacked Servillano several times.
Appellant fled from the scene of the crime and went into hiding, until a week passed after the incident
before his wife saw him again.
Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Ruling:
No. The circumstances that qualify murder must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself. The
presence of treachery and evident premeditation must not be deduced from mere presumption or sheer
speculation. Unfortunately, in the case at bench, that is exactly what the trial court did in concluding that
both qualifying circumstances are present. Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery. Its
essence lies in the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the
offended party. Absent the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, the crime
committed by appellant is not murder, but homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code.

TREACHERY
People vs. Tabarnero and Tabarnero
GR No. 168169
February 24, 2010
Facts:
On October 23, 1999, Gary was allegedly in his house in Longos, Malolos, Bulacan at around
11:40 p.m. with his friend, Richard Ulilian; his father, co-appellant Alberto; his mother, Elvira; and his
brother, Jeffrey. Overcome with emotion over being separated from Mary Jane, Gary then went to Ernestos
house, but was not able to enter as no one went out of the house to let him in. He instead shouted his pleas
from the outside, asking Ernesto what he had done wrong that caused Ernesto to break him and Mary Jane
up, and voicing out several times that he loved Mary Jane and was ready to marry her. When Gary was
about to leave, the gate opened and Ernesto purportedly struck him with a lead pipe. Ernesto was aiming at
Garys head, but the latter blocked the blow with his hands, causing his left index finger to be broken. Gary
embraced Ernesto, but the latter strangled him. At that point, Gary felt that there was a bladed weapon
tucked at Ernestos back. Losing control of himself, Gary took the bladed weapon and stabbed Ernesto,
although he cannot recall how many times he did so.
Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Ruling:
Yes. In People v. Montejo, the prosecution witnesses testified that after challenging the victim to a
fight, the accused stabbed the victim in the chest while he was held in the arms by the accused and a
companion. Not requiring a swift and unexpected commencement to the attack, the Court held: Thus, there
is treachery where the victim was stabbed in a defenseless situation, as when he was being held by the
others while he was being stabbed, as the accomplishment of the accused's purpose was ensured without
risk to him from any defense the victim may offer [People v. Condemena, G.R. No. L-22426, May 29, 1968,
23 SCRA 910; People v. Lunar, G.R. No. L-15579, May 29, 1972, 45 SCRA 119.] In the instant case, it has
been established that the accused-appellant stabbed the victim on the chest while his companions held
both of the victim's arms. The killing of Ernesto was attended by treachery. However, even assuming for the
sake of argument that treachery should not be appreciated, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
superior strength would nevertheless qualify the killing to murder. Despite being alleged in the information,
this circumstance was not considered in the trial court as the same is already absorbed in treachery. The

10
act of the accused in stabbing Ernesto while two persons were holding him clearly shows the deliberate use
of excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked.

TREACHERY
People vs. Zulieta aka Bogarts
GR No. 192183
November 11, 2013
Facts:
On June 13, 2006, at about 10:30 in the evening, Bryan Pascua and deceased Armand Labando,
Jr. were outside their boarding house, seated at the bench just outside the store of Jimmy Saura. While
they were eating bananas, Bogarts, Rey and Tantan approached them. Bogarts, who had with him a
pitcher, dropped it in front of them so they immediately stood up. Bryan Pascua then heard Tantan shout,
"birahi na na" (hit him now), then saw Bogarts pull a batangas knife and stab the deceased, hitting him on
his chest. He ran towards their boarding house, afraid that he will be attacked next.
Issue:
Whether or not Treachery was employed in the case at bar.
Ruling:
Yes. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The
essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected
manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Otherwise
stated, an unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put up a
defense is the essence of treachery. In this case, the victim Labando was totally unaware of the threat. He
was merely sitting on the bench in front of a sari-sari store eating bananas when appellant, without any
provocation or prior argument, suddenly stabbed him on his chest, piercing the right ventricle of his heart
thus causing his instantaneous death. The stabbing was deliberate, unexpected, swift and sudden which
foreclosed any escape, resistance or defense coming from the victim. This is a classic example of
treachery.