G.R. No. 119417 October 9, 1996
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OMAR CLETO VARONA, JR. and TOM BARONA, accused. OMAR CLETO VARONA, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Omar Cleto Varona, Jr., along with his brother Tom Barona (at large), was charged with Murder for the killing of Eduardo Alberto on February 8, 1993, in Malabon, Metro Manila. The prosecution evidence established that the victim, while riding a tricycle, was initially hit on the cheek with a dustpan by the appellant. The victim fled but was chased. The appellant’s brother, Tom, appeared and handed him a bolo. The appellant then pursued and overtook the victim, who was kneeling and pleading for his life, stating he would not fight back. Despite this, the appellant hacked the defenseless victim multiple times until he died.
The defense, principally through the appellant’s own testimony and that of his sister-in-law, claimed self-defense. They alleged that the victim was the unlawful aggressor who had hunted for the appellant and attempted to unsheathe a bolo, forcing the appellant to retaliate. The trial court rejected this version of events, characterizing the claim of self-defense as “an out and out fabrication.”

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of self-defense in favor of the accused-appellant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the conviction for Murder qualified by treachery. The Court emphasized that when an accused admits inflicting the fatal wounds, the burden shifts to him to prove the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. These elements are: (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation from the accused.
The Court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding no reason to overturn its conclusion that the defense’s narrative was fabricated. The established facts showed the victim was unarmed, kneeling, and begging for mercy when he was hacked to death, which negated any unlawful aggression on his part. Consequently, the essential first element of self-defense was absent. The Court also rejected the alternative plea for mitigating circumstances, as these were dependent on facts not proven, such as unlawful aggression or a lawful act that produced passion or obfuscation. Treachery was correctly appreciated because the mode of attack was deliberately executed to ensure the killing without risk to the assailant, given the victim’s helpless and defenseless state.