GR 160341; (October, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160341 ; October 19, 2004
EXEQUIEL SENOJA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
On April 16, 1997, petitioner Exequiel Senoja, Fidel Senoja, Jose Calica, and Miguel Lumasac were drinking gin in the hut of Crisanto Reguyal in Barangay Zarah, San Luis, Aurora. The victim, Leon Lumasac (brother of Miguel), arrived angrily, holding a bolo, looking for Miguel. Petitioner and Jose Calica pacified Leon. When petitioner approached, Leon tried to hack him, so petitioner embraced Leon, and Jose took Leon’s bolo. Leon and petitioner reconciled. Subsequently, Leon walked out of the hut followed by petitioner. About ten meters away, petitioner stabbed Leon at the back. When Leon turned around, petitioner continued stabbing him until he fell dead. Petitioner then ran away and threw the “kolonial” knife used. Dr. Pura Deveza Valenzuela-Uy found multiple lesions and five fatal chest wounds on the victim. Petitioner was charged with homicide. He admitted the killing but invoked self-defense, claiming that after Leon left the hut with Jose Calica’s bolo (given as replacement), Leon turned back, treacherously hacked petitioner on the head and thigh, and petitioner stabbed Leon in self-defense.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating petitioner’s plea of self-defense.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The plea of self-defense was not credible. The Court of Appeals correctly analyzed the incident in two phases. In the first phase, Leon was the aggressor upon entering the hut, but his aggression ceased after he was pacified and reconciled with petitioner. In the second phase, when Leon left to go home, his aggression had already ceased. The petitioner’s claim that Leon suddenly and treacherously attacked him after walking away was belied by the evidence. The nature, number, and location of the victim’s wounds (nine fatal wounds, including a stab at the back and a defensive wound on the left palm) were inconsistent with a sudden, treacherous attack by the victim and were more indicative of a determined assault by the petitioner. The petitioner’s injuries were likely sustained during the victim’s attempt to defend himself. The petitioner failed to prove the elements of self-defense—unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The trial court’s finding of guilt for homicide beyond reasonable doubt was thus affirmed.