G.R. No. 112713 October 25, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE TAMPARONG, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jose Tamparong, Jr. was charged with Murder for the death of his brother-in-law, Emilio Aranas, on February 24, 1990. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Ernita Aranas (the victim’s wife), testified that she saw Tamparong and his wife, Estrella (who remained at large), attack Emilio at a public market. She stated that Tamparong, armed with a knife, stabbed the unsuspecting Emilio from behind while Estrella held him and struck him with a bamboo stick. Emilio died from multiple stab wounds. Ernita also recounted a prior incident where the accused, armed with bolos, had threatened to kill Emilio.
Tamparong admitted to the killing but claimed self-defense. He testified that Emilio had accosted him, punched him, and then attempted to stab him with a knife. He alleged that he was able to wrestle the knife away from Emilio and stabbed him in the ensuing struggle. The trial court rejected this defense and convicted him of Murder qualified by treachery.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery, and properly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the self-defense claim. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Tamparong’s version was found inherently improbable and uncorroborated, failing to credibly establish unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. In contrast, the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the clear and consistent eyewitness account of Ernita Aranas, convincingly established the killing.
The Court agreed that treachery (alevosia) qualified the killing to Murder. The attack was sudden and from behind, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the accused from any defense the victim might make. The victim was unarmed and caught completely by surprise, rendering him helpless. The Court also credited the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as the records showed Tamparong surrendered to authorities in Dipolog. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in the minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence ranging from ten years and one day of prision mayor maximum as minimum to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum.