People v. Dela Cruz Velasco, Jr.

, J
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Leozar dela Cruz
Concept: Judicial Admissions; Weight and Sufficiency
of Evidence
Brief Facts: Leozar dela Cruz slit Vincent Pimentels
neck with a samurai. Initially, he pleaded not guilty of
the crime of murder. RTC found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. On appeal, Dela Cruz said that the
crime he committed was only homicide. CA affirmed
the findings and conviction of the RTC, and noted that
Dela Cruz no longer disputes the fact the he killed
Vincent. SC ruled that the crime committed was indeed
murder as the element of treachery, as gleaned from
the testimony of the eye-witness, was present.
3.
Doctrine: When the appeal of the accused merely
focused on the appreciation of qualifying aggravating
circumstances, it, for all intents and purposes amounts
to owning up to the killing of the victim.
FACTS:
1. (gleaned from the testimonies of Sheryll Blanco
(eye-witness); Carolina Agullana (victims commonlaw wife); PO2 Ricardo Tan (investigator); and
P/Insp. Dr. Benjamin Lara): About 7:15pm, April 30,
2003, Sheryll and her friends Arman Taculod, Mark
Anthony Medida and Charissema Daton (Medidas
wife) were passing time at Mockingbird St., Brgy.
Rizal, Makati.
Dela Cruz was standing about 2 meters from
them
3 girls arrived and handed Dela Cruz a letter;
Dela Cruz left and after about 5-10 minutes,
came back with a two-foot samurai. He was
very angry, cursing and hacking plants with the
samurai.
Mark Anthony and Charissema went inside
their house, while Sheryll and Arman moved to
a store, 6-7m away from Dela Cruz.
Vincent Pimentel arrived, and left Carolina
inside a tricycle. Dela Cruz greeted him and
said that Vincent owes him money. Vincent
then gave Dela Cruz P50 then proceeded to the
alley.
When Vincent returned from the alley, Dela
Cruz suddenly placed his arm around Vincent
and slit Vincents neck with the samurai.
Dela Cruz ran away while Vincent staggered
and fell. Carolina and Arman rushed Vincent to
the hospital but the latter died before reaching
it.
Cause of death: hemorrhagic shock secondary
to an incised wound of the neck.
2. Defense: Dela Cruz denied the charges and
proffered the defense of alibi. He said that he could
not have been at the scene of the killing for he was
drinking with his friend Mark Magat in Pembo,
Makati from 3-11:00 pm and passed the night at
the latters place.
Corroborated by the testimonies of Magat, his
father and grandmother.
The defense also presented Dela Cruzs codetainees at the Makati City Jail, Mark Anthony
and Christopher Labradores, who testified to
seeing Mark Magat with Vincent prior to the

4.

5.
6.

killing and seeing Mark toting samurai

immediately after the killing.
The defense tried to pin Arman Taculod as the
assailant of Vincent. Christopher said that he
saw Arman Taculod carrying a samurai in his
hands, and heard a commotion thereafter
caused by the death of Vincent. (Taculod died
before he could testify for the prosecution, but
was able to execute a sworn statement
identifying Dela Cruz as the assailant of
Vincent.)
Mark Anthony Medida, however, was unable to
explain why he identified Dela Cruz as the
assailant of Vincent, and said that the police
merely coerced him to sign a blank piece of
paper.
August 11, 2003 An Information was filed against
dela Cruz, indicting him for murder. He, armed
with a samurai, with intent to kill and with
treachery and evident premeditation, and with
superior strength, hacked with a samurai Vincent
Pimentel.
RTC ruling: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder attended by treachery; sentenced Dela
Cruz to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay
moral damages of P100k and civil indemnity of
P50k.
Believed the testimony of eye-witness Sheryll
since she was unwavering and certain in her
identification
of
the
accused;
Carolina
corroborated such statement
RTC appreciated the testimony of P/Insp. Lara
as to the conclusions regarding the nature and
variety of neck wounds and how they can
cause death in a victim.
Dela Cruz, however, maintained that the crime
committed was only homicide. Thus he
appealed the decision to the appellate court.
CA: affirmed the findings and conviction of the RTC,
but reduced moral damages to P50k and awarded
P25k exemplary damages.
CA noted that Dela Cruz, in his appeal, no
longer
disputes
the
fact
that
he
committed the killing of Vincent. Thus the
sole question now is whether the killing was
attended by treachery so as to qualify it to
murder.

ISSUE and RULING:

1. WON the lower courts erred in appreciating the
qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery
such that it erred in convicting the accused of
murder instead of homicide. (NO)
2. Is the award of damages proper? (YES)
RATIO:
For a charge of murder to prosper, the prosecution
must prove that: 1) the offender killed the victim,
2) through treachery, or by any of the five
qualifying circumstances.
The elements of murder are: 1) that a person was
killed; 2) that the accused killed him; 3) that the
killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Art. 248. 4) that the
killing is not parricide or infanticide.
The fact of death of Vincent Pimentel is
undisputed, that it is neither parricide nor
infanticide, and that Dela Cruz killed him. This

was established by the trial and appellate

courts. In his appeal before the CA and the
one at bench, Dela Cruz solely questions the
appreciation of the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of treachery.
There is treachery when the offender commits any
of the crimes against persons, employing means,
methods or forms in the execution, which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to the offender arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.
Essence: attack comes without warning
and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected
manner, affording the hapless, unarmed
and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape.
For treachery to be considered, two
elements must concur: 1) employment of
means of execution that gives the persons
attacked
no
opportunity
to
defend
themselves or retaliate; and 2) means of
execution were deliberate or consciously
adopted.
The issue of the presence of treachery
hinges on the account of eye-witness
Sheryll. She was certain and unwavering in
her positive identification of Dela Cruz as
the assailant of Vincent. Her testimony was
factual, straight-forward and convincing on
how the murder transpired.
Parts of the transcript:
Q: when Pimentel walked away from dela Cruz, what
else happened if any?
A: When he emerged from the alley, Dela Cruz put his
arms around him and then slit his neck.
Q: What did dela Cruz use in slashing the neck of
Pimentel?
A: Samurai, Sir.
xxx
Q: when he emerged from the alley dela Cruz in the
vernacular inakbayan siya and afterwards slashed his
neck, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When Vincent Pimentel paid dela Cruz the amount
of P50, did they quarrel?
A: No, Sir.
Q: Immediately before dela Cruz in the vernacular
inakbayan si Vincent Pimentel did they quarrel?
A: No, Sir.
xxx

Q: How far were you in relation to the place where

dela Cruz in the vernacular inakbayan si Vincent
Pimentel and slashed his neck?
A: From my place to where you are seated.
Fiscal: May we ask if the defense is willing to stipulate
that the distance is around 2-3 meters
Atty. Pagao: We stipulate, Your Honor.
Xxx
Q: how long that samurai is?
A: around 24 inches.
Xxx
Q: And is this Dela Cruz dela Cruz present in the
courtroom today?
A: Yes, sir.
Xxx
Q: Please point to him if he is indeed present?
A: Yes, sir
Interpreter: Witness tapped the shoulder of the
accused and when asked his name he identified
himself as dela Cruz.
-

It is clear that the attack was sudden, affording

the victim no opportunity to defend himself,
much less retaliate. Sherylls testimony was
not at all rebutted by the defense. Also, the
appeal of Dela Cruz merely focused on the
appreciation of the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of treachery, which for all
intents and purposes amounts to owning
up to the killing of Vincent Pimentel.
The fact that Dela Cruz and Vincnet did not
quarrel prior to the killing is indicative of the
treachery employed by Dela Cruz. The victim
was unaware of the imminent attempt on his
life, and was not in a position to defend
himself. Treachery was present.

2. Based on current jurisprudence, the award of civil

indemnity ex delicto of P50,000 in favour of the heirs of
Pimentel is in order. The CA also correctly award moral
damages of P50,000 in view of the violent death of the
victim and the resultant grief to his family. Also, if a
crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance,
either qualifying or generic, an award of P30,000 as
exemplary damages is justified under Art. 2230 of Civil
Code. Besides, the entitlement of moral damages
having been established, the award of exemplary
damages is proper.
DISPOSITIVE: CA decision affirmed.
exemplary damages increased to P30k.

Award

of