G.R. No. 130945 ; November 19, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO CONDINO Y PEREZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alberto Condino was charged with Murder for the killing of Alejandro Magadia on December 29, 1989, in Sariaya, Quezon. The Information alleged that he attacked the victim with a stone and a pointed weapon, employing treachery and evident premeditation. Initially, trial proceedings were suspended as Condino was found to be suffering from schizophrenia and incompetent to stand trial. After his mental condition improved, the trial proceeded. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses who testified that in the afternoon of the incident, while Magadia and his companions were walking, Condino, who had earlier challenged the victim to a basketball game, suddenly threw a stone that hit Magadia’s head. As the victim fell prostrate, Condino stabbed him three times. The victim died from his injuries. The defense, however, claimed self-defense, asserting that Magadia and six other armed men attacked him first, forcing him to throw a stone in retaliation.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted Condino of Murder, and whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the credible and consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The claim of self-defense was rejected. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Condino failed to discharge this burden. The nature, location, and severity of the victim’s wounds—including a head injury from a stone and multiple stab wounds on the back and face inflicted while the victim was already down—contradicted the narrative of a frontal assault by an armed group and instead indicated a determined attack on a helpless victim. The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding of treachery, as the sudden stoning and subsequent stabbing of a fallen victim ensured the execution of the attack without risk to the assailant. However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty by appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was established by evidence that Condino reported to the police after the incident. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the suspension of the death penalty at the time of the crime, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.