G.R. No. L-24884 August 31, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CONSORCIO PELAGO Y BEKILLA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Consorcio Pelago, was convicted of murder for the killing of Braulio Torres, who died from a stab wound in the abdomen. The prosecution’s lone eyewitness, Alfredo Metillo (brother-in-law of the deceased), testified that on the afternoon of December 20, 1964, at a cockpit in Calabayan, Ozamiz City, he, the deceased, and the accused were conversing. While Metillo was looking around for his wife, the accused suddenly stabbed Torres, who had his arms crossed in front of him, inflicting wounds on the left arm and abdomen. Metillo brought Torres to a hospital where he died. Metillo insisted there was no altercation; it was an ordinary conversation. The defense presented Honorato Capa, who testified that the deceased, after being refused cigarettes and tuba by the appellant, encircled his arms around the appellant’s neck, said “What are we going to drink, blood?”, and pulled out a dagger. The appellant then pulled out his hunting knife and stabbed the deceased’s arm, which penetrated the abdomen, in an act of self-defense while struggling to free himself. The trial court rejected the defense’s version, finding it inconsistent with the location of the injuries, and noted the appellant’s flight and disposal of the weapon as contrary to behavior of one acting in self-defense.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in (1) not appreciating the appellant’s plea of self-defense, and (2) finding that the killing was attended by treachery (alevosia) to qualify it as murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. (1) The plea of self-defense was correctly rejected by the trial court. The Court upheld the trial court’s factual findings and analysis of the evidence, applying the established rule that appellate courts will not disturb the trial court’s findings on witness credibility when the evidence for the successful party is adequate to sustain the judgment. The defense version was deemed untenable as it was inconsistent with the wound locations, and the appellant’s flight negated self-defense. (2) However, the Court found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution eyewitness’s testimony that the accused “suddenly stabbed” the victim while his arms were crossed did not establish that the appellant consciously adopted a mode of attack intended to ensure the crime’s commission without risk to himself. The suddenness of the attack alone does not constitute treachery. Furthermore, the witness’s insistence on an ordinary conversation with no altercation made an unprovoked, treacherous attack unlikely under the circumstances. Consequently, the crime committed is homicide, not murder. The appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal, with accessory penalties, and to pay indemnity to the heirs of the deceased.