G.R. No. 113445 December 29, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Nicandro Abria, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On May 8, 1991, in Manila, accused-appellant Nicandro Abria and his co-accused Fernando Abria were charged with the murder of Lutgardo Fumar. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. Nicandro Abria was later arrested, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s lone eyewitness, Marilou Fumar (the victim’s wife), testified that on the night of the incident, after a verbal altercation involving Fernando Abria and the witness’s sister-in-law, appellant, armed with a bladed instrument, emerged from his house. After failing to chase Esteban Fumar (the victim’s brother), appellant turned his ire on Lutgardo Fumar, who had just been roused from sleep, and stabbed him in the chest. The victim managed to get a bolo but collapsed. Marilou rushed to help and was also stabbed. The victim died two days later from complications of the stab wound. The defense claimed self-defense, alleging that the victim and Esteban Fumar attacked him first with a knife and a bolo, and that he suffered a mental blackout during the incident. The trial court convicted Nicandro Abria of murder qualified by treachery, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages. Fernando Abria was acquitted.

ISSUE

1. Whether treachery attended the killing.
2. Whether the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Marilou Fumar, is credible.
3. Whether the accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense is valid.
4. Whether the penalty imposed is correct.

RULING

1. Yes, treachery was present. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding. Although the attack was frontal, it was sudden and unexpected. The victim had just been awakened, was unarmed, and was unable to defend himself. The Court cited People v. Basadre, stating that a sudden frontal attack on an unarmed and unaware victim constitutes treachery.
2. Yes, the testimony of Marilou Fumar is credible. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s findings. The fact that the witness was the victim’s wife lends more credence to her testimony, as her natural interest is to ensure the conviction of the guilty.
3. No, the claim of self-defense is not valid. The Court found the defense version implausible. The trial court noted it was unbelievable that the victim and his companion would have remained passive during the alleged initial struggle. The claim of a mental blackout was deemed an afterthought, and appellant’s superficial injuries were inconsistent with a severe attack. Furthermore, appellant’s flight to Western Samar after the incident indicated guilt.
4. Yes, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in its entirety, including the penalty and the awards of civil indemnity and actual damages.