G.R. No. 122102 September 25, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Loreto Noay, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the night of May 24, 1992, Paterno Patajo, his wife Bebina, their son Pedrito, and his wife Annabelle were sleeping in their house in Barangay Balugo, Dumaguete City. They were awakened by stones being thrown at their house. Annabelle recognized the voice of the person outside calling for Paterno to open the door as that of their neighbor and cousin, accused-appellant Loreto Noay. When Paterno opened the door, appellant immediately stabbed him in the chest with a “pinuti” (machete), causing his death. Upon hearing Bebina’s cries for help, another son, Regino, ran from his nearby house and was met by appellant, who hacked him, causing multiple incised wounds. Pedrito, who also tried to help, was hacked on the left shoulder by appellant before he managed to escape. Appellant left the scene after Bebina begged him to do so. Paterno died from the stab wound. Regino and Pedrito were treated for their injuries. Three criminal informations were filed against appellant: for Murder (for killing Paterno), Frustrated Murder (for hacking Regino), and Attempted Murder (for wounding Pedrito), all alleged to have been committed with treachery. The cases were consolidated. Appellant pleaded not guilty and interposed self-defense, claiming he was attacked and mauled by Paterno, Regino, Pedrito, and another son, Dionisio, and that he only acted to defend himself, accidentally stabbing Paterno who ran towards his machete. The trial court rejected his defense, found him guilty of all charges, appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and imposed penalties including reclusion perpetua for murder. Appellant appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating self-defense in favor of appellant.
2. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that treachery attended the killing of Paterno.

RULING

1. The trial court did not err in rejecting appellant’s claim of self-defense. When an accused admits the act but invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish its elements by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant failed to meet this burden. His testimony and that of his witness, Isabel Bantigue, were replete with contradictions both within their own accounts and with each other regarding key details of the alleged aggression and his response. The physical evidence (the nature and location of the victims’ wounds) and the credible, consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (Annabelle, Bebina, Regino, and Pedrito) overwhelmingly established that appellant was the unlawful aggressor who initiated the attack without provocation.
2. The trial court correctly appreciated treachery (alevosia) in the killing of Paterno. The attack was sudden and unexpected. Appellant first threw stones at the house, then called Paterno outside. When Paterno opened the door, appellant immediately directed a flashlight at his face and stabbed him without any warning or opportunity to defend himself. This mode of execution deliberately and consciously adopted by appellant ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. Treachery qualified the killing to Murder.
The Supreme Court modified the penalties. For Murder, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. For Frustrated Murder, the indeterminate sentence was modified to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum. For Attempted Murder, the indeterminate sentence was modified to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum. The award of moral damages to Pedrito was deleted. The awards of civil indemnity for Paterno’s death, burial expenses, and moral damages to Regino were sustained.