G.R. No. 114872. January 16, 1997.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIOMEDES MAGALLANO and MARCELO MAGALLANO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants, brothers Diomedes and Marcelo Magallano, were convicted of murder for the killing of Elfonio Adelantar. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Cirilo Manaban, testified that on February 1, 1989, he and the victim were in Sitio Tampa-on when the victim attempted to shoot a bird with a slingshot. As the victim moved to follow the bird, appellant Marcelo approached and engaged him in conversation. Appellant Diomedes then stealthily approached from behind and hacked the victim with a bolo. When the victim tried to draw his own weapon, Marcelo hacked his arm. Cirilo, then 14 years old, fled to inform the victim’s wife and later his father. The defense presented a different version, claiming self-defense. Marcelo testified the victim initially threw a knife at him, while Diomedes claimed he was attacked by an intoxicated victim and merely retaliated. They presented a doctor who treated their alleged wounds. The trial court rejected the defense and found the appellants guilty, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of murder and rejecting their claims of self-defense and denial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of self-defense was untenable as the appellants failed to prove the essential elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Their version was uncorroborated and inconsistent with the physical evidence. The Court also found no merit in the attack on the credibility of eyewitness Cirilo Manaban. The alleged inconsistencies between his sworn affidavit, preliminary examination testimony, and court testimony pertained to minor details and did not affect the core narrative of the crime. The witness’s initial failure to mention Marcelo’s specific act of hacking the victim’s arm was satisfactorily explained as an omission in the affidavit, which does not negate the veracity of his subsequent detailed court testimony. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack was sudden and from behind, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, an indivisible penalty, was properly imposed.