G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Johnny Lascota y Candong, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On January 2, 1990, at a dance in Sitio Mamonmon, Aborlan, Palawan, Ramon Amarado, Jr. was stabbed and killed. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Danilo Domingo and Allan Fortin. Danilo testified that while dancing, he saw appellant Johnny Lascota (alias “Tangke”), whom he recognized by his face and blue striped shirt, walk towards Ramon as Ramon was leaving the dance hall with Allan Fortin and suddenly stab him without any warning. Allan testified that after hearing a thud, he turned and saw Ramon lying face down and appellant running away carrying a knife. Dr. Rogelio Divinagracia’s autopsy confirmed the victim died from a penetrating stab wound to the stomach that injured his liver. The victim’s father testified about a possible motive, alleging appellant held a grudge against him for previous disciplining. The defense, consisting solely of appellant’s testimony, claimed the incident was precipitated by an argument over music requests. Appellant alleged that Ramon and Allan pulled out bolos, causing him to run away after leaning on and breaking through a fence. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay indemnity.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present.
3. Whether the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense should be appreciated in favor of appellant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto.
1. The prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The positive and categorical testimonies of eyewitness Danilo Domingo, who had a clear view of the stabbing from about eight meters away under petromax light, and Allan Fortin were credible and consistent. Their identification of appellant was reliable. Appellant’s denial and alternative story were unsubstantiated and deemed a fabrication.
2. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that ensured its completion without risk to the appellant from any defense the victim might make. The victim, Ramon Amarado, Jr., was walking out of the dance hall, completely unaware and without any provocation, when appellant casually approached and stabbed him.
3. The privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense was not appreciated. Appellant’s claim of self-defense was inconsistent with his earlier denial of involvement and was not supported by credible evidence. The Court found his testimony on this point to be a mere fabrication intended to mitigate his penalty.