G.R. No. 128820 December 23, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GAUDIOSO MORE, ERNESTO MORE and JERWIN MORE, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Gaudioso, Ernesto, and Jerwin More were convicted of murder for the killing of Valentino Pagumay. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Romeo Muralla, testified that on February 22, 1994, he and the unarmed victim were walking when they encountered the three armed accused. The accused shouted accusations about the victims pointing guns, prompting them to flee. The accused gave chase, caught Valentino, and took turns stabbing him multiple times while restraining him. Another witness, Juanito Faromal, corroborated the assault, though with minor variance on the roles of Ernesto and Jerwin.
The accused, however, invoked self-defense. Gaudioso claimed that after he handed Valentino a cigarette, the victim suddenly drew a gun and threatened to shoot him. Gaudioso testified that he wrestled Valentino to the ground, disarmed him, and stabbed him in self-defense. His brothers, Ernesto and Jerwin, asserted they arrived later and merely tried to stop Gaudioso.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the claim of self-defense and in finding accused-appellants guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of self-defense was correctly rejected. When an accused admits the killing but invokes self-defense, the burden shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of its elements: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element. The Court found the appellants’ narrative of unlawful aggression unconvincing and incompatible with the physical evidence. The claim that Valentino initiated aggression with a gun was belied by the fact that no gun was recovered and, critically, by the nature of the victim’s wounds. The autopsy revealed eighteen stab wounds inflicted by at least two different weapons, indicating a concerted attack by multiple assailants, not a solitary act of defense. This disproved Gaudioso’s story of a one-on-one struggle and confirmed the prosecution’s version of a conspiracy to kill. The minor inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were deemed inconsequential and did not impair their credibility. The qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was properly appreciated. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of damages were sustained.