G.R. No. 136869; October 17, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DENNIS MAZO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case, primarily through eyewitness Rommel Abrenica, established that in the early morning of January 10, 1997, in Romblon, Romblon, an altercation occurred between the victim, Rafael Morada, Jr., and the accused-appellant, Dennis Mazo, at a bar called “Rendezvous.” Later, as Morada and Abrenica rode past on a motorcycle, they were called by Mazo’s group. Morada alighted and approached. Mazo, holding a knife, stabbed Morada below the left nipple. Morada fled but stumbled; Mazo pursued and inflicted multiple stab wounds as Morada pleaded for him to stop. Morada died from a cardiac tamponade. Mazo surrendered to the police, admitted the stabbing, and led them to the discarded knife.
The defense interposed self-defense. Mazo testified that it was Morada who was initially armed with a knife and attacked him first near a pharmacy. He claimed he was able to wrestle the knife away from Morada and, in the ensuing struggle, stabbed him. He asserted he acted only to defend himself. The trial court rejected this defense, convicted Mazo of Murder qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of Murder qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court found that the prosecution successfully proved the killing beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense failed. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found Mazo’s narrative of unlawful aggression by the victim unconvincing and inconsistent with the physical evidence and the credible testimony of eyewitness Abrenica, who saw no weapon with the victim and witnessed a sudden, unprovoked attack.
However, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) was not established with moral certainty. Treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the safety of the assailant from any defense the victim might make, without risk to the attacker. The evidence showed the attack began with a frontal confrontation when the victim approached the appellant’s group. The initial stab was delivered face-to-face. While the subsequent attacks on the fallen victim may have been treacherous, the trial court did not specify which act caused the fatal wound. Since the fatal wound (injury No. 1) could have been inflicted during the initial frontal assault, treachery cannot be presumed. Absent any qualifying circumstance, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was accordingly reduced to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.