Allen, David, and Edward are investigative journalists who exposed public officials engaged in corrupt practices. They received death threats every day from unknown sources. One day, they received a letter which states: “Are you ready to meet the Lord tomorrow??? … Allen @1pm …. David @3pm …. Edward @7pm.” The following day, Allen was fatally stabbed at 1:00 p.m. while David was gunned down dead at 3:00 p.m. At that moment, Edward sensed that his life was in danger. At 7:00 p.m., Edward went to church and prayed for his safety. A parishioner sat beside Edward and whispered to him: “The Lord will not protect you!” The parishioner repeatedly stabbed Edward on his chest resulting in his instantaneous death. The police arrested the parishioner, later identified as Harold, and charged him with murder qualified by treachery. At the trial, Harold argued that the death threats and the manner of attack forewarned Edward about his impending death which negate treachery. Is Harold criminally liable for murder aggravated by treachery? Explain.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, Harold is criminally liable for murder qualified by treachery. Under Article 248 in relation to Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code, treachery exists when the offender employs means of execution ensuring the crime without risk to himself.
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Why is Harold criminally liable for murder qualified by treachery despite Edward being forewarned by death threats?
Treachery exists when an attack is executed so suddenly that the forewarned victim is given no chance to defend himself.
Under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code, what is the essence of treachery in crimes against persons?
Treachery lies in the sudden attack that deprives the victim of any real opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.
How does Philippine jurisprudence treat a claim that prior death threats negate the existence of treachery?
General anticipation of danger from death threats does not preclude treachery if the specific attack rendered the victim defenseless.
What two requisites must concur for treachery to be appreciated under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code?
Choices available with full access.
In the case of Edward, how did Harold consciously adopt a treacherous mode of attack?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Elements of Treachery
Under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, 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 lies in the sudden, unexpected, and conscious adoption of a mode of attack that deprives the victim of any real opportunity to defend himself, thereby ensuring the accomplishment of the crime without danger to the perpetrator.
2. Forewarned Victim Rule
Philippine jurisprudence holds that prior warning or general anticipation of danger does not automatically negate treachery. Even if a victim was forewarned by death threats or aware that his life was in jeopardy, treachery may still be appreciated if the actual attack was launched so suddenly and unexpectedly that the victim was rendered completely defenseless. The critical test is not whether the victim anticipated danger in abstract terms, but whether the specific mode and execution of the attack afforded the victim any immediate opportunity to resist or defend himself at the moment of assault.
3. Mode of Execution
For treachery to qualify a killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, two requisites must concur: the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. Approaching a victim while pretending to be a fellow worshiper inside a house of prayer and delivering sudden fatal stabs to the chest constitutes a consciously chosen method designed to catch the victim off guard, ensuring execution without risk.