G.R. No. 134563; October 28, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. FRANCISCO DALA, appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on November 25, 1996, appellant Francisco Dala, after attending a wedding, was walking home with his wife while quarreling. He was carrying a kitchen knife. Ahead of him were victims Julio Clapano and Absalon Tedlos. Dala called for them to stop, and when they faced him and greeted him, he suddenly unsheathed his knife and stabbed Absalon, causing his death. Julio fled and reported the incident. Dala later surrendered to authorities.
The appellant, however, claimed self-defense. He testified that as he walked home, Absalon and Julio emerged from hiding. Absalon allegedly attempted to hit him twice with a bottle, but both attempts were parried. Dala claimed he stabbed Absalon because the two men blocked his path at the creek, leaving him no room to retreat, and he “overdid” his act of defense.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the appellant successfully proved his plea of self-defense to exculpate himself, or at least negate the qualifying circumstance of treachery for the crime of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment finding the appellant guilty of murder. The Court ruled that the appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable means employed to repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found the appellant’s claim of unlawful aggression untenable. His own testimony revealed that the alleged attacks by the victim—two bottle strikes which were both parried—had already ceased. He admitted the sole reason for stabbing the victim was because his path was blocked, which does not constitute the sudden and imminent attack required for unlawful aggression. Absent this essential element, self-defense fails.
The Court also upheld the finding of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed when the unarmed victim, having been called to stop and while offering a greeting, had no opportunity to defend himself. With the qualifying circumstance of treachery present, the crime is murder. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in the appellant’s favor. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, particularly its rejection of the appellant’s implausible testimony in favor of the consistent account of prosecution witness Julio, was accorded finality.