GR 125331; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125331 ; November 23, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MERLINDO BELAJE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s case rested on the testimonies of Rogelio and Victoria Caysido, the son and wife of the victim, Bonifacio Caysido. Rogelio testified that on the evening of June 24, 1994, in Babatngon, Leyte, he witnessed the appellant, their neighbor, stab his father with a pisaw (knife) at their house. He stated he was 3 to 4 meters away during the incident. Victoria testified that the stabbing occurred in their yard but admitted on cross-examination that she did not actually witness the event, having been informed of it while inside the house. The victim succumbed to his wounds eleven days later. The defense, anchored on self-defense, presented appellant Merlindo Belaje. He claimed he went to the victim’s house to request that the volume of a karaoke machine be lowered. He alleged that on his way, he encountered the victim and a companion, Danilo Josep. Appellant testified that the victim slapped him and that Danilo attempted to stab him with a sipol. He managed to wrest the weapon and, in the ensuing struggle, stabbed the victim.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of murder, and whether the justifying circumstance of self-defense was sufficiently proven.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, convicting the appellant of homicide instead of murder and adjusting the penalty and damages. The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the appellant’s claim of self-defense. When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to them to establish its elements—unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation—by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found the appellant’s narrative inherently weak and uncorroborated. His claim that the victim and another person jointly attacked him was not credible, especially as the alleged companion, Danilo Josep, was not presented as a witness. The positive identification by prosecution witness Rogelio Caysido, who had no motive to falsely testify, prevailed over the appellant’s uncorroborated denial.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence did not establish how the attack commenced. Rogelio’s testimony began with the appellant already stabbing the victim, providing no details on the manner of assault that would convincingly show the victim was rendered defenseless. Absent clear proof of the mode of attack, treachery cannot be presumed. Consequently, the crime committed is homicide, not murder. The Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as the appellant surrendered to authorities the same night. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was reduced. The Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages but deleted the award of actual damages for lack of substantiating receipts.