People vs.

Baustista

Facts:
The appellant together with the others had a drinking spree. Three other
went home ahead and left the appellant and the deceased, armed with a bolo,
behind.

Around 9 pm a neighbor saw the appellant running after the deceased

thought his window.

At around midnight the accused went to Hilario's house together with his
brother and confessed that he killed the deceased and requested if they can sleep
in the house which was granted by Hilario.
The accused and his brother left the house in the morning. Hilario then wrapped the
bolo and surrendered it to the authorities.

He then went to his friend Buyagan and confessed the incident, thus he was
compelled to report the matter to the police.

The appellant interposed self-defense in his behalf.

He narrated that during the drinking spree the deceased told about the
hacking of his uncle by the appellant's cousin. He reacted saying that he is not like
his cousin.

After their companions went home the deceased followed and badmouthed
him. Raising his bolo he embraced the deceased and grabbed the bolo. The
deceased however threw a stone at him as he ran. The deceased caught up with
him and he then confronted and struck him with his own bolo.

He was found guilty by the lower court for the crime of murder reasoning that
there was treachery.

The case was appealed. The appellant raised the issue that the court should
have decided that it was only homicide.

Issue:
Whether or not there was treachery in killing?

Held:
The Court said that the allegation of treachery must be proven together with
the crime itself.

The court further added that treachery is present if the two elements are
present namely: : (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or
conscious adoption of the means of execution. What is decisive is that the execution
of the attack makes it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.
 The records show that the deceased was totally aware of the impending
danger, based on the testimony that the appellant was running after the deceased
and caught up with him. Such circumstance negates that existence of treachery.
Thus the decision of the lower court should have been homicide not murder.