GR 109660; (July, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANNY ANGELES alias “Danny Fake” and JOHN DOE, accused, ROMEO NELL alias “Omeng,” appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Romeo Nell, together with Danny Angeles and a John Doe, was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Reynaldo Laureano on March 24, 1990, in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Only appellant was arrested and tried. He pleaded not guilty and claimed self-defense. The prosecution presented two versions of the incident from witnesses Rosini Espejo-Cenon and Benjamin Laureano (the victim’s brother), both identifying appellant as the assailant but with material differences regarding the participation of others and the sequence of events. Rosini Cenon testified she saw appellant stab the victim upon the order of Danny Angeles after the victim had been immersed in a canal. Benjamin Laureano testified he saw appellant and the victim quarrel, after which appellant ran, returned later, chased, and stabbed the victim. The autopsy revealed the victim died from an eleven-inch stab wound and two puncture wounds. The defense version, from appellant, was that the victim and his companions demanded money, attacked him (hitting him with a beer bottle), and he stabbed the victim in self-defense while using a screwdriver to defend himself. The trial court convicted appellant of Murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay indemnity.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the appellant on the ground of self-defense.
2. Whether the trial court erred in categorizing the crime committed as murder instead of homicide.
RULING
1. The Supreme Court rejected the claim of self-defense. When an accused admits the killing, as appellant did, the burden shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of self-defense. Appellant failed to do so. His testimony was uncorroborated and deemed incredible by the trial court. The physical evidence (the nature and location of the wounds) and the prosecution evidence contradicted his claim. The trial court correctly found the prosecution witnesses more credible.
2. The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s ruling on the qualifying circumstance. The trial court erroneously appreciated evident premeditation. The prosecution failed to prove the elements of evident premeditation: the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow for reflection. The evidence only showed a prior quarrel and a subsequent return, which is insufficient. However, the killing was attended by treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden and unexpected, and the victim was unarmed and sitting down when initially assaulted, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. This qualified the killing to Murder. The Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but corrected the basis for the qualification. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity were affirmed.