G.R. No. 129960 ; August 28, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO CARIÑO @ “ORLANDO,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Pedro Cariño was charged with Murder for the killing of Edmundo Milan on September 16, 1992, in Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of eyewitness Rolando Lovinaria, the victim’s brother-in-law. Lovinaria testified that he and the victim attended a wake where a misunderstanding occurred after the victim touched appellant’s head. Appellant challenged the victim to a fight but was pacified. Later, as Lovinaria and the victim were walking home, appellant followed them. Lovinaria embraced appellant to pacify him, but appellant pulled out a “Rambo” knife, broke free, pursued the victim, and stabbed him twice at the back and hacked him on the head. The victim died. Dr. Hermenigildo Somera conducted the autopsy and testified that the fatal wounds were those inflicted from behind. Appellant pleaded self-defense, claiming the victim first slapped him, then pulled out a knife, and he only stabbed the victim during a struggle for possession of the knife. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

1. Whether the testimony of prosecution witness Rolando Lovinaria deserves credence.
2. Whether self-defense was proved by appellant.
3. Whether treachery qualified the killing to murder.

RULING

1. Yes, the testimony of Rolando Lovinaria deserves full credence. The relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair credibility, especially when no improper motive to testify falsely is shown. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is generally respected, and Lovinaria’s testimony was candid, straightforward, and credible.
2. No, appellant failed to prove self-defense. When self-defense is invoked, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Appellant’s claim was not credible, especially given the prosecution evidence that he pursued and attacked the victim from behind.
3. No, treachery was not sufficiently established. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The existing hostility and prior altercation between the parties prior to the attack gave the victim reason to be apprehensive and forewarned, thereby negating the element of surprise or unawareness. Consequently, the killing is Homicide, not Murder. Appellant is guilty of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for loss of life is affirmed. The award of P67,805.00 for actual damages (funeral expenses) is also affirmed, being supported by receipts.