G.R. No. 130658 May 4, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ORLITO GADIN, JR. alias “Ay-Ay”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on the evening of March 13, 1995, in Catbalogan, Samar, accused-appellant Orlito Gadin, Jr. approached Elito Pajanustan, Rowena Dacut, and Jessie Mabini, who were drinking by the roadside. After being offered a drink, Gadin stared at them, suddenly drew a knife from his back pocket, and without any provocation, thrust it into Pajanustan’s chest. Gadin fled, hid the knife in his uncle’s house, and escaped. The victim was brought to the hospital where, before expiring, he told his mother that Gadin stabbed him out of jealousy. The medical report confirmed death was due to a single, fatal stab wound.
The accused presented a different version, claiming self-defense. He testified that he was merely conversing with his godsister, Rowena Dacut, when Pajanustan, whom he did not know, became insulting and aggressive. An altercation ensued where Pajanustan allegedly punched him, grabbed a knife from the table, and tried to stab him. Gadin claimed he wrestled for the knife and, while being pushed back and in the struggle, accidentally stabbed Pajanustan in the chest. He then surrendered to the police.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant Orlito Gadin, Jr. of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and the awarded damages. The Court rejected the defense of self-defense. When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish its elements by clear and convincing evidence. Gadin failed to do so. His claim of unlawful aggression by the victim—that Pajanustan attacked him with a knife—was not credible. The nature, location, and depth of the single, fatal wound, directed laterally into the chest, were inconsistent with a reflexive or accidental act during a struggle. It indicated a deliberate thrust. The prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, which were found credible by the trial court, established a sudden and unprovoked attack.
However, the Court found that treachery (alevosia) was not sufficiently proven. For treachery to qualify the 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 evidence showed the attack was frontal and the victim was seated, but there was no showing that Gadin consciously employed a particular method to render Pajanustan defenseless. The suddenness of the attack alone does not constitute treachery. Absent any qualifying circumstance, the crime is Homicide, not Murder. The imposable penalty is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering no mitigating or aggravating circumstances were proven, the penalty was set at an indeterminate sentence. The Court also modified the damages, awarding civil indemnity and moral damages but deleting the unsubstantiated actual and exemplary damages.