G.R. Nos. 111206-08. October 6, 1995.

*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, JR., accused-appellant

TOPIC: MURDER

FACTS:
 Ronald Chapman, Jussi Leino and Maureen Hultman were from a house party at Leino then went on a night out. At
around 3AM Maureen requested Leino to take her home at Dasmarinas Village. Chapman stopped a block away from
Maureen’s house as requested by her as she did not want to let her parents know that she was coming home late.
 Leino walked with Maureen while Chapman was left in the car. When they reached a corner street a light colored
Mitsubishi box type Lancer car, driven by Claudio Teehankee stopped in the middle of the road.
 Teehankee alighted and asked who they were and asked for their ID. Leino thought it was just to check their identity
but Teehankee just grabbed and pocketed Leino’s wallet. Chapman saw the incident and stepped outside the car and
asked why the accused was bothering his friends. Teehankee pushed Chapman and fired at him. Maureen went
hysterical and shouted for help. Teehankee and Maureen had a short chase.
 Leino and Maureen sat down in the sidewalk as ordered. Teehankee turned his back on the two and faced them again
and shot Leino. He was hit on the upper jaw that made him fall. Teehankee also shot Maureen. Leino shouted for
help. Leino saw the accused return to his car and drive away. Leino and Maureen were rushed to the hospital.
Maureen died eventually.
 There were two security guards and a stay-in driver who witnessed the crime. They all heard the gunshots. Two of
then peeped and saw the accused fired shots at Leino and Maureen then afterwards flee. They were able to notice
the plate number which was PDW 566.
 After a series of questions and investigations, the accused was identified as the gunman. He was traced through his
plate number and the description of the car. Teehankee was also a resident of the same village. The accused was also
positively identified by Leino.
 DEFENSE:
o Accused relied on the defense of denial and alibi. Accused claimed that during the shooting incident, he was
not anywhere near the scene of the crime, but in his house in Pasig. Accused averred that he only came to
know the 3 victims in the Dasmarinas shooting when he read the newspaper reports about it. Accused
admitted ownership of a box-type, silver metallic gray Mitsubishi Lancer, with plate number PDW 566. He,
however, claimed that said car ceased to be in good running condition after its involvement in an accident.
Until the day of the shooting, his Lancer car had been parked in the garage of his mother’s house in
Dasmarinas Village. He has not used this car since then. Accused conceded that although the car was not in
good running condition, it could still be used.
o A testimony were Maureen was heard shouting “Huwag Daddy, Huwag Daddy” thus an angle that her
adoptive Swedish father killed her but the latter testified that Maureen never talked to him in tagalog and
that his children calls him “Papa” not “Daddy”.
 TRIAL COURT: Convicted the accused of the crime of Murder of Chapman and Maureen and Frustrated Murder of
Leino. Sentenced for Reclusion Perpetua and to suffer the indeterminate penalty of (8) years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor respectively and a cost of P3M for all 3 cases.
 The accused appealed and that contended that Leino could not have identified him since the shooting lasted for 5
mins only and he was under the influence of alcohol and that he already saw him in tv/news. Accused also contended
that he was negative of nitrates and publicity gave him impartial trial. He claimed that treachery was not present and
asserted that suddenness of attack does not prove treachery.
ISSUE:
W/N the accused committed the crime of murder:
1. Chapman – NO, accused committed HOMICIDE
2. Maureen – YES, the accused killed Maureen with treachery thus committing a crime of MURDER

RULING:
We hold that the prosecution failed to prove treachery in the killing of Chapman. Prosecution witness Leino established
the sequence of events leading to the shooting. He testified that for no apparent reason, appellant suddenly alighted from
his car and accosted him and Maureen Hultman who were then walking along the sidewalk. Appellant questioned who
they were and demanded for an I.D. After Leino handed him his I.D., Chapman appeared from behind Leino and asked
what was going on. Chapman then stepped down on the sidewalk and inquired from appellant what was wrong.
There and then, appellant pushed Chapman, pulled a gun from inside his shirt, and shot him. The gun attack was
unexpected. “Why did you shoot me?” was all Chapman could utter.

Concededly, the shooting of Chapman was carried out swiftly and left him with no chance to defend himself. Even then,
there is no evidence on record to prove that appellant consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack to insure
the accomplishment of his criminal design without risk to himself. It appears to us that appellant acted on the spur of the
moment. Their meeting was by chance. They were strangers to each other. The time between the initial encounter and the
shooting was short and unbroken. The shooting of Chapman was thus the result of a rash and impetuous impulse on the
part of appellant rather than a deliberate act of will. We have consistently ruled that mere suddenness of the attack on the
victim would not, by itself, constitute treachery. Hence, absent any qualifying circum stance, appellant should only be held
liable for Homicide for the shooting and killing of Chapman.

As to the wounding of Jussi Leino and the killing of Maureen Hultman, we hold that treachery clearly attended the
commission of the crimes. The evidence shows that after shooting Chapman in cold blood, appellant ordered Leino to sit
on the pavement. Maureen became hysterical and wandered to the side of appellant’s car. When appellant went after
her, Maureen moved around his car and tried to put some distance between them. After a minute or two, appellant got
to Maureen and ordered her to sit beside Leino on the pavement. While seated, unarmed and begging for mercy, the two
were gunned down by appellant. Clearly, appellant purposely placed his two victims in a completely defenseless position
before shooting them.

There was an appreciable lapse of time between the killing of Chapman and the shooting of Leino and Hultman—a period
which appellant used to prepare for a mode of attack which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself.
Treachery was thus correctly appreciated by the trial court against appellant insofar as the killing of Hultman and the
wounding of Leino are concerned.