G.R. No. 101794 February 24, 1995
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eliseo Morin, alias “Titoy” and Arnel Loria alias “Nono,” accused-appellants.

FACTS

On October 12, 1984, in Barangay Simsiman, Norala, South Cotabato, Celso Llagas was killed. The prosecution’s evidence showed that after hearing a commotion, the victim’s mother, Corazon Llagas, and his wife, Nida, found Celso lying on the road. Before he died, Celso identified his assailants to his mother as “Titoy, Nono, Agui”—the known aliases of accused-appellants Eliseo Morin, Arnel Loria, and Romeo Morin (at large). The defense presented a different version. Appellant Eliseo Morin claimed self-defense, alleging that the victim attacked him with a bolo outside a house, and he retaliated with a pinuti, resulting in the victim’s death. He asserted that appellant Arnel Loria was asleep inside the house at the time. The post-mortem examination revealed the victim sustained nine stab wounds and one lacerated wound. The trial court convicted both accused of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and sentenced them to Reclusion Perpetua.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellants of Murder. This involves the evaluation of: (1) the viability of Eliseo Morin’s claim of self-defense; (2) the strength of Arnel Loria’s defense of alibi against the victim’s dying declaration; and (3) the proper appreciation of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the judgment. It held:
1. On Self-Defense: Appellant Morin’s claim of self-defense failed. The burden of proof shifts to the accused claiming self-defense, and Morin did not meet this burden. The claim was disproven by the number and nature of the victim’s wounds (nine stab wounds), which are indicia disproving self-defense, and by medical testimony suggesting Morin’s own wounds could have been self-inflicted. The fact the victim’s bolo was found sheathed also belied the claim it was used in an attack.
2. On Alibi and Dying Declaration: Appellant Loria’s defense of alibi cannot prevail. His claimed location (asleep in a house about 35 meters away) did not prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the crime scene. His alibi was directly contradicted by the victim’s dying declaration, which identified him as an assailant. The Court upheld the dying declaration as evidence of the highest order, rejecting the defense’s argument that death was “instantaneous,” noting that even instantaneous death does not preclude a short period of survival during which a declaration can be made.
3. On Qualifying Circumstances: The Court found that the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There was insufficient evidence on the planning and cool reflection required for evident premeditation. Treachery could not be appreciated because no witness saw the actual commencement of the attack to establish that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the victim’s defenselessness.
4. Final Disposition: The crime is therefore Homicide, not Murder. The Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of Ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to P50,000.00.