G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO MAALAT y FAJARDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the afternoon of March 23, 1986, accused-appellant Fernando Maalat suddenly entered the house of Roberto Cruz. He stabbed Roberto, who was sleeping on the floor of the living room, in full view of Roberto’s son, Berniel. Berniel shouted for his mother, Imelda, who rushed in and saw her husband push the accused as he was about to be stabbed again. Roberto ran to a nearby house and locked himself inside, where he later died from his wounds. The accused was surrendered to the police by his uncle-in-law on April 29, 1986. The autopsy confirmed the cause of death was a stab wound from a pointed bladed weapon. The accused claimed self-defense, alleging he went to Roberto’s house to clarify why Roberto was hunting him, that Roberto strangled him and pulled a knife, and that he disarmed Roberto and stabbed him in response. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and dwelling, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay compensatory damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider that accused-appellant acted in self-defense.
2. Assuming arguendo that the act does not justify acquittal, whether the trial court erred in convicting for murder instead of homicide and in not considering the mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender.

RULING

1. The trial court did not err in rejecting the plea of self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation from the person defending himself. The Court found the first requisite of unlawful aggression absent. The accused’s claim that the victim strangled him with one hand while holding a balisong with the other was deemed not credible and contrary to human experience. Furthermore, the accused’s desire to stab the victim a second time after the initial attack negated the claim that he was merely repelling an aggression, as the danger would have ceased after the first stab. The trial court correctly gave more credence to the prosecution’s version, supported by the straightforward testimonies of the victim’s wife and son, that the accused suddenly attacked the victim while he was asleep.
2. The trial court correctly convicted the accused of murder, not homicide. The attack on the victim while he was asleep constituted treachery (alevosia), as the means employed gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and such means were deliberately adopted. The mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense cannot be appreciated because its prerequisite, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, was absent. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated in favor of the accused, as his surrender to the police, accompanied by his uncle, was spontaneous and showed respect for the law. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty was reduced. The Supreme Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The award of P50,000.00 was also modified to be death indemnity instead of compensatory damages. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was AFFIRMED with these modifications.