G.R. No. 140896 ; May 7, 2002
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOVENCIO PACANTARA y MASON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jovencio Pacantara was charged with the murder of Dominador Drillon. The prosecution presented eyewitness Wilfredo Villasor, a barangay tanod, who testified that on March 22, 1998, he saw Pacantara, armed with a bolo, suddenly hack the unarmed victim, who was sitting and writing on a betting card. Villasor intervened and was also wounded. The medico-legal report detailed twelve hack and incised wounds, two of which were fatal, and confirmed that blood on the bolo matched the victim’s type. The victim’s widow testified regarding a prior grudge between Pacantara and her family.
The defense interposed self-defense. Pacantara claimed the victim first attacked him with a knife after a confrontation, forcing him to use his bolo to defend himself. He asserted he sustained injuries, but no medical evidence was presented to corroborate this claim. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the prosecution’s evidence credible, and convicted Pacantara of murder qualified by treachery.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of murder, qualified by treachery, and rejected his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the settled principle that an accused invoking self-defense admits the killing and bears the burden of proving its justifying circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. Pacantara failed to discharge this burden. His claim of unlawful aggression by the victim was not credible, as it was uncorroborated and contradicted by the positive testimony of the eyewitness, who saw a sudden and unprovoked attack on a seated and defenseless victim. The nature, number, and location of the wounds—multiple hack wounds inflicted from behind—were inconsistent with a spontaneous fight and indicative of a determined assault, negating self-defense.
The Court upheld the finding of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The victim was seated, unarmed, and preoccupied, with no warning of the imminent assault. This method of attack, which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant, squarely qualifies the killing as murder. The Court modified the damages, increasing moral damages to P50,000 while affirming the awards of civil indemnity and funeral expenses. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was sustained.