G.R. No. 104664 . August 28, 1995.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELYBOY SO Y ORBES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On June 3, 1991, in Manila, accused-appellant Elyboy So was charged with the murder of Mario Tuquero. The prosecution established that on the evening of June 2, 1991, So attended a drinking session with his cousins and the victim, Mario Tuquero, who was the boyfriend of So’s cousin, Emy. During the session, So became involved in an altercation, prompting Tuquero to pacify him and advise him to go home as he was disturbing the neighbors. So left but later returned in the early morning of June 3.
At around 4:00 a.m., while Tuquero and Emy were waiting for a taxi, So suddenly appeared from behind and stabbed Tuquero multiple times with a fan knife. Emy, an eyewitness, testified that even as Tuquero fell to the ground, So continued to stab him despite her pleas to stop. So then fled the scene. The defense, however, interposed the justifying circumstance of self-defense. So claimed that Tuquero had previously threatened him with a knife during the drinking session and that during their encounter on the street, Tuquero attempted to draw a gun, forcing So to stab him first.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly rejected the claim of self-defense and properly convicted the appellant of murder qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is anchored on the settled doctrine that an accused who invokes self-defense admits to the killing and consequently bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstances of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found that the appellant failed to discharge this burden. His claim that the victim attempted to draw a gun was uncorroborated and belied by the credible and straightforward testimony of eyewitness Emy So, who narrated a sudden and unprovoked attack from behind. The physical evidence, showing multiple stab wounds inflicted from behind and on the front when the victim was already down, was inconsistent with a mutual confrontation and instead indicated a determined assault.
Furthermore, the Court upheld the finding of treachery. The attack was sudden, from behind, and employed a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim who was merely waiting for a taxi, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. This manner of execution deliberately and consciously adopted by the appellant ensured the accomplishment of the killing without risk to himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity were thus affirmed.