G.R. No. 127153 ; October 23, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SATUR APOSAGA y GUTIEREZ, appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of March 28, 1992, in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, the victim Medel Sigueza and his friends were drinking. They encountered appellant Satur Aposaga, who angrily declined an invitation to join them. Later, as the group walked home, appellant suddenly emerged from behind a mango tree, armed with an axe and a long pointed instrument. After a brief exchange where a friend tried to pacify him, appellant rushed at Sigueza, shouting. Eyewitness Marlon Tad-y testified he saw appellant stab the victim in the back. The victim was later found in a pool of blood and died from multiple stab wounds, including one that penetrated his heart.
Appellant claimed self-defense, alleging the victim and his friends attacked him first because of a prior altercation. He testified he was merely defending himself with a knife he happened to be carrying. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder, or for a lesser offense.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court found the prosecution successfully established appellant’s guilt for the killing through the credible and consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, which were corroborated by the medical findings. The Court rejected the claim of self-defense as it was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence; appellant failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution evidence showed that the attack was not entirely sudden and unexpected from the inception. The initial confrontation involved a verbal exchange and an attempt at pacification, which afforded the victim a forewarning of potential danger. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the mode of attack must be deliberately adopted to ensure its execution without risk to the assailant from any defense the victim might make. The circumstances here did not conclusively prove this deliberate and calculated method. Absent any other qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is homicide.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Appellant was also ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages to the victim’s heirs.