GR 138612; (November, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138612; November 11, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. PERCIVAL GONZA Y BORRAL, Appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Percival Gonza, was charged with murder for the killing of Virgilio Mortega. The prosecution evidence established that on August 16, 1996, during a wake, the victim was singing when the appellant decided to leave. As the appellant exited a makeshift coffee shop (kapihan), the victim followed him. The appellant suddenly turned around and repeatedly stabbed the victim with a fan knife. The victim retreated, but the appellant pursued him and delivered more stabs, causing his death. Prosecution witnesses Catalino Mortega and Edina Dimaano, who were present, testified to witnessing the attack. The appellant admitted the killing but claimed self-defense. He testified that the victim, who was drunk, had punched him without provocation after an earlier verbal altercation. He alleged he only stabbed the victim when the latter allegedly attempted to draw a knife during their struggle.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery to constitute murder, or if the appellant’s claim of self-defense is credible, which would exonerate him.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, finding the appellant guilty of Homicide, not Murder. The Court rejected the claim of self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The appellant’s narrative failed to establish unlawful aggression that was continuous and imminent at the moment he inflicted the fatal wounds. His claim that the victim was about to pull a knife was uncorroborated and belied by the fact that no such weapon was found on the victim after the incident. The number, location, and severity of the victim’s wounds also indicated a determined attack inconsistent with mere self-preservation.
However, the Court also ruled that treachery (alevosia) was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. For treachery to qualify the killing to murder, the prosecution must prove that the means of execution were deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed the attack began face-to-face after a prior altercation. The victim was aware of a possible hostility from the appellant, as he had just punched him. The suddenness of the knife attack, while shocking, did not constitute alevosia because it did not come from a completely unsuspecting victim who was in no position to defend himself. Absent this qualifying circumstance, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court affirmed the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages but modified the actual damages to temperate damages due to lack of sufficient receipts.