G.R. No. 138646 ; March 6, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOMER CABANSAY y PALERMO alias “OMI”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case, primarily through eyewitness Michael Cellan, established that on January 22, 1997, in Cebu City, the accused Jomer Cabansay, without any prior altercation, suddenly stabbed Gilbert Castillo twice with a bolo (pinuti) while the victim was conversing with others. Cabansay then also stabbed Cellan three times. The attack resulted in Castillo’s death. The medico-legal report indicated a fatal stab wound on the left lumbar area (back) of the victim. The defense, however, presented a version of self-defense. Accused Cabansay claimed that an altercation occurred earlier, and that Castillo was the initial aggressor who attacked him with a bolo. He testified that he merely wrestled the weapon away and stabbed Castillo in retaliation during a continuing struggle.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the accused-appellant has successfully proven the justifying circumstance of self-defense to absolve him of criminal liability for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder and rejected the plea of self-defense. The legal logic is anchored on the settled principle that an accused invoking self-defense admits the killing and consequently bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of its essential elements: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found the appellant’s claim of self-defense inherently weak and inconsistent with the physical evidence. The location of the fatal wound on the victim’s back strongly negated a face-to-face struggle and suggested a treacherous attack. The prosecution eyewitness’s credible account of a sudden and unprovoked assault was more consistent with the physical facts than the appellant’s narrative. Furthermore, the appellant’s act of also stabbing another individual, Michael Cellan, who was not an alleged aggressor, undermined his claim of defending himself against an unlawful attack. The Court held that the positive identification by the eyewitness, corroborated by the nature of the wounds, established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven, as the mode of attack ensured the victim’s defenselessness. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus affirmed.