G.R. No. 132167; January 8, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO QUENING Y VERSOZA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on March 12, 1995, appellant Armando Quening hacked Antonio dela Cruz to death with a bolo. The victim’s widow, Bernadeth dela Cruz, testified that after an earlier altercation, she and her husband returned home. While her husband was sitting at their gate, she saw appellant approach from behind and hack him repeatedly. Prosecution eyewitness Julito Rabino corroborated this, testifying he saw appellant hacking the victim near his house gate. The autopsy revealed seven hacking wounds, two of which were on the victim’s back. The defense presented a different version. Witness Orlando Bartola claimed he saw the victim, armed with a bolo, run towards and attack appellant first, and that appellant merely wrested the weapon and used it in self-defense. Appellant himself testified that the victim lunged at him with a knife, leading to a struggle where he gained possession of the weapon and stabbed the victim.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the accused-appellant is guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, or if his claim of self-defense is credible.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The Court found the appellant’s claim of self-defense untenable. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The appellant failed to establish unlawful aggression. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, deemed credible by the trial court, showed that the attack was sudden and that the victim was seated with his back to the road when assaulted. The location of wounds on the victim’s back corroborated the prosecution’s narrative of a treacherous attack from behind, negating any initial aggression from the victim. The positive identification by credible eyewitnesses prevailed over the defense’s denial. However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven. The Information alleged both evident premeditation and treachery, but neither was established with certainty. The attack, while sudden, did not clearly show the deliberate adoption of means to ensure execution without risk to the assailant. With no qualifying circumstance present, the crime is homicide, not murder. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Civil indemnity of P50,000 was affirmed.