Chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment

Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise.

For treachery to be appreciated two elements must concur: [1] the employment of means of execution that would insure the safety of the accused from retaliatory acts of the intended victim and leaving the latter without an opportunity to defend himself; and [2] the means employed were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.

The suddenness of the attack, the infliction of the wound from behind the victim, the vulnerable position of the victim at the time the attack was made or the fact that the victim was unarmed do not by themselves render the attack as treacherous. This is of particular significance in a case of an instantaneous attack made by the accused whereby he gained an advantageous position over the victim when the latter accidentally fell and was rendered defenseless. (G.R. No. 139542. June 21, 2001)

The means employed for the commission of the crime or the mode of attack must be shown to have been consciously or deliberately adopted by the accused to insure the consummation of the crime and at the same time, eliminate or reduce the risk of retaliation from the intended victim.Accordingly, it has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment or that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. Thus, the sudden attack made by the accused due to his infuriation by reason of the victim’s provocation has been held to be without treachery.

Sudden attacks made by the accused preceded by curses and insults by the victim or acts taunting the accused to retaliate or the rebellious or aggressive behavior of the victim have also been held to be without treachery as the victim was sufficiently forewarned of reprisal. For the rules on treachery to apply the sudden attack must have been preconceived by the accused, unexpected by the victim and without provocation on the part of the latter. (G.R. No. 139542. June 21, 2001)

In People v. Caratao, it appears from the evidence that appellant's grudge against the victim was brought about only moments before the attack, when the latter ignored his repeated pleas for rice. As observed by the trial court, the sight of the victim leaving the compound without heeding appellant’s request must have worsened his anger. In his testimony, appellant admitted that, at that moment, he "forgot himself."

Further, he explained that it was then customary for him to bring a knife for his own safety, in defense against lawless elements in their area at the time. It was thus only by chance and not by plan that he attacked the victim the way he did. The stabbing was evidently a result of a rash and impetuous impulse of the moment arising from what appellant perceived to be an unjust act of the victim, rather than from a deliberated action. Hence, as the killing was done at the spur of the moment, treachery cannot be appreciated. (People vs. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 482)