G.R. No. 87202 ; July 23, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFAEL VELAGA, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Rafael Velaga, Jr., was charged with murder for the fatal stabbing of Virgilio dela Cruz. The prosecution’s evidence established that on December 16, 1980, a vehicular collision occurred in Dagupan City between a Toyota Land Cruiser carrying the victim and his companions and a motorcycle driven by Velaga. After the accident, a heated argument ensued between Velaga and the Land Cruiser’s driver. The victim, Virgilio dela Cruz, approached to pacify the two. While the victim was standing between them, Velaga suddenly drew a knife and stabbed him. The victim died three days later. Velaga fled and remained at large for nearly four and a half years before his arrest.
The defense presented a contrary version, claiming Velaga acted in legitimate self-defense. He testified that after the collision, he was assaulted by the victim’s companions. He alleged that during a struggle for a knife with the victim, he fell on top of dela Cruz, causing the fatal wound. The trial court rejected this defense, found Velaga guilty of murder qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, also appreciating nighttime as a generic aggravating circumstance.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) the validity of the plea of self-defense; (2) the correctness of appreciating treachery to qualify the killing as murder; and (3) the propriety of appreciating nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It upheld the rejection of the self-defense plea. The Court emphasized the trial court’s superior position to assess witness credibility and found no reason to overturn its findings. Velaga’s prolonged flight was deemed inconsistent with an innocent mind and negated his claim of justification.
However, the Court ruled that treachery was not present. The attack did not involve a deliberate method to ensure execution without risk. The meeting was accidental, arising from a sudden vehicular collision and a heated argument. The victim had four companions nearby who could have reacted, and the altercation had already placed the group on guard. The stabbing was an impulsive act following the dispute, not a carefully crafted attack.
Furthermore, the Court held that nighttime should not be considered aggravating. The prosecution failed to prove that Velaga purposely sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the crime. The nighttime was merely incidental to the accidental collision and the ensuing events. In the absence of treachery, the crime committed is homicide, not murder. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The indemnity to the heirs was increased to P50,000.00.