GR 111484; (June, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111484 June 2, 1995
MARIANO DE LUNA Y ROLDAN, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mariano De Luna was convicted for the killing of Demetrio Rodelas. The prosecution evidence, primarily from eyewitness Sergio Tagbago, established that on the evening of April 12, 1982, De Luna shouted a challenge at Rodelas outside Tagbago’s house. As Rodelas was leaving, De Luna met him at the gate and stabbed him in the thigh. Rodelas died later that night. The defense presented a different version, claiming De Luna was ambushed by Rodelas and another individual, Andres Rodelas, and that he merely wrestled the weapon away in self-defense during a struggle.
The Regional Trial Court convicted De Luna of homicide, appreciating in his favor the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and imposing an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, ruling that De Luna was not entitled to incomplete self-defense.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly disallowed the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and imposed the proper penalty.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic rests on the requirements for justifying or mitigating a killing based on self-defense. For complete self-defense under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code to apply, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. For the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense under Article 69 to apply, at least two of these conditions—with unlawful aggression being indispensable—must be present.
The Court upheld the appellate court’s finding that De Luna failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The physical evidence and the credible, consistent testimony of eyewitness Tagbago established that De Luna was the aggressor who sought out and stabbed the victim. De Luna’s claim of being attacked was uncorroborated and inconsistent with the location and nature of the victim’s solitary wound. Since the essential element of unlawful aggression was absent, no incomplete self-defense could be appreciated. Consequently, the penalty must be imposed in its ordinary period without the one or two-degree reduction allowed under Article 69. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings and penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals.