G.R. No. 122774 September 25, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDCARDO (EGAY) EBRADA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Edgardo (Egay) Ebrada was charged with Murder for the killing of Lolito Magbanua, Jr. on March 26, 1988, in Muntinlupa. The information alleged the killing was committed with treachery and evident premeditation. After being arrested in January 1994, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses: Lolito Magbanua, Sr. (victim’s father), who testified that his dying son identified Ebrada as the assailant; Mariano Millama (storekeeper and eyewitness), who testified he saw Ebrada come from behind the victim and stab him once in the right buttocks while the victim was seated in front of the store; Renato Mateo, who testified he saw the victim bloodied and then saw Ebrada coming from behind the victim and running away; and Dr. Maximo Reyes (NBI Medico-Legal), who testified the fatal stab wound at the back indicated the assailant was behind and slightly to the left of the victim, with no signs of self-defense. The defense presented Rafael Manankil and Ebrada himself. Manankil testified there was a prior confrontation where Ebrada accused the victim of theft, and later a commotion where the victim uttered invectives and seemed to pull something. Ebrada claimed self-defense, alleging the victim cursed him, drew a knife, and during a struggle for the knife, it ended up stuck in the victim’s body. The trial court convicted Ebrada of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, also awarding moral and exemplary damages but not civil indemnity. Ebrada appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies over the defense of self-defense.
2. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently proven.
3. Whether the trial court erred in its award of damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with MODIFICATION on the award of damages.
1. The trial court did not err in crediting the prosecution witnesses. The positive identification by eyewitness Millama, corroborated by the dying declaration and medico-legal findings, prevails over Ebrada’s claim of self-defense. For self-defense to succeed, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Ebrada failed to prove unlawful aggression; his own testimony indicated the victim’s act of pulling something was not clearly an aggressive move, and he had the opportunity to retreat but did not. The physical evidence (single stab wound at the back) contradicts a frontal struggle and supports the prosecution’s version of a sudden attack from behind.
2. Treachery was sufficiently proven. The attack was sudden and from behind, giving the victim, who was seated and talking, no opportunity to defend himself. The manner of execution (coming from behind, crossing the street, delivering a single stab) directly and specifically ensured the execution without risk to the assailant.
3. The trial court erred in not awarding civil indemnity for death, which is mandatory. The Supreme Court modified the damages: civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is awarded. The award of exemplary damages was deleted as there were no aggravating circumstances. The award of moral damages was sustained. The compensatory damages based on loss of earning capacity were not granted as the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the victim’s actual income.