G.R. No. 116616 November 26, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO EMBERGA y MIGUEL and ROMEO EMBERGA y MIGUEL, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Ricardo and Romeo Emberga were convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court for the fatal stabbing of Rafaelito Nolasco on October 28-29, 1991, in Kalookan City. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Milagros Resulta, testified that she saw the appellants and their father chasing the victim from her window. She heard the victim shout for help before witnessing the appellants stab him as he lay on the ground. The medico-legal officer confirmed the victim sustained 25 stab wounds from two different weapons, with fatal wounds on the front of his body, causing massive blood loss. The defense, however, presented a different narrative. Appellant Romeo Emberga admitted to the killing but claimed he acted in defense of his brother, Ricardo. He testified that the victim initially attacked Ricardo with a knife during a sudden quarrel, prompting Romeo to intervene and stab the victim. This version was corroborated by defense witnesses Gary Robinas and Danilo Ablaza.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the crime committed is Murder, qualified by treachery, or the lesser crime of Homicide, and whether the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative is applicable.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution evidence did not clearly show that the appellants employed means of execution that deliberately and consciously ensured the victim’s defenselessness. The eyewitness account indicated the victim was first chased, suggesting an opportunity for a face-to-face confrontation. Furthermore, the number, location, and nature of the wounds, including defensive wounds on the victim’s arms, indicated a struggle, negating the notion of a sudden and unexpected attack without risk to the appellants. The Court also rejected the claim of defense of a relative. The appellants failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, as their claim of a sudden knife attack was uncorroborated by physical evidence and was inconsistent with their extrajudicial confessions, which admitted the killing without mention of any prior aggression from the victim. Consequently, the appellants are guilty only of Homicide. The penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. They were ordered to pay civil indemnity and actual damages.