G.R. No. 132669 , September 25, 2002.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMUEL “SONNY” EMPERADOR Y LOPEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

On the evening of September 14, 1996, in Barangay San Roque West, Agoo, La Union, Danilo Collado was stabbed to death. The prosecution’s eyewitnesses, Mario Collado and Benigno Collado (brothers of the victim), testified that they were seated along the barangay road conversing with the victim and Edgardo Emperador when the accused, Samuel Emperador, suddenly arrived, pulled out a Japanese hunting knife, and without provocation stabbed Danilo on the chest. The victim ran but the accused chased him, threw him to the ground face down, and stabbed him repeatedly. When Mario tried to intervene, the accused also stabbed him on the forearm. Benigno testified to a similar sequence of events. Dr. Fredesvinda Pacis, the medico-legal officer, confirmed the victim sustained five stab wounds, with the fatal one to the left ventricle of the heart, and stated the wounds were inflicted at close range. The victim’s wife, Ligaya Collado, testified on the damages incurred.
The accused interposed self-defense, claiming he was drinking with a group, including Domingo Collado and Benigno Collado, when the victim, Danilo, arrived drunk, shouted invectives, kicked a bottle of gin at him, and attacked him first with a scythe and then a knife. He alleged he merely wrestled for the knife in self-defense. His version was corroborated by his neighbor, Emelita Lopez. Barangay Captain Roberto Miranda testified the accused surrendered to him that same evening.
The trial court convicted the accused of Murder, appreciating the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the accused acted in complete self-defense.
2. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery to constitute Murder.
3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of Murder despite the non-allegation of treachery in the Information.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court rejected the claim of self-defense. The positive, clear, and consistent testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, were found more credible than the accused’s version. The claim of self-defense was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The nature, number, and location of the victim’s wounds (five stab wounds, including a fatal one to the heart, inflicted at close range) were inconsistent with a mere struggle for a knife and indicated a determined effort to kill.
2. The Court ruled that treachery was not proven. The prosecution witnesses’ account indicated a sudden attack, but it was not shown that the accused employed means, methods, or forms that deliberately and consciously ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. The attack occurred face-to-face, and the victim was able to run before being caught. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established.
3. The Court held that the trial court erred in convicting the accused of Murder. The Information did not allege any qualifying circumstance, such as treachery. Under the rules, qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the Information to be validly considered. Since treachery was not alleged, the crime could not be qualified as Murder. The killing was therefore properly classified as Homicide only.
The Supreme Court MODIFIED the trial court’s decision. The accused was found GUILTY of HOMICIDE, not Murder. Applying the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation appreciated by the trial court, and with no aggravating circumstances, the penalty was reduced. The indeterminate sentence was imposed within the range of prision mayor, as prescribed for Homicide. The award of damages was also modified: the civil indemnity for death was increased to P50,000.00; moral damages of P50,000.00 were affirmed; actual damages were reduced to P18,080.00 (the amount supported by receipts); and the award for loss of earning capacity was deleted for lack of sufficient basis.