GR 144933; (July, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144933 ; July 3, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JERRY ANTONIO Y DIOLATA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that in the early morning of October 11, 1998, the victim, Jomar Ephan, was drinking with friends in front of a store in Mandaue City. Accused-appellant Jerry Antonio arrived, bought cigarettes, and ordered the group to count them. When they refused, he left. He returned shortly thereafter and, without any prior altercation, suddenly stabbed Ephan in the back. The victim died the following day from his injuries. A barangay tanod later intervened when a mob, having chased and caught Antonio, was mauling him. The defense presented a different account, claiming Antonio was attacked first with a stool by the group, and only after the drunken victim attempted to hit him did Antonio grab a knife and stab Ephan in self-defense during the ensuing commotion.
ISSUE
The core issues on appeal were: (1) whether the trial court erred in rejecting the claim of self-defense and convicting Antonio of murder, and (2) whether the mitigating circumstance of an illness diminishing will-power should be appreciated.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder. On the claim of self-defense, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, which favored the prosecution’s version of a sudden, unprovoked attack. By invoking self-defense, the accused admitted inflicting the fatal wound and assumed the burden of proving its justifying elements: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found he failed to prove unlawful aggression, as the prosecution witnesses credibly testified to a surprise attack from behind with no prior physical confrontation. The alleged head injury from a stool did not constitute a mitigating circumstance analogous to an illness diminishing will-power, as it was unsubstantiated and did not negate the deliberate nature of the stabbing.
The Court ruled the killing was attended by treachery. The attack from behind was swift and deliberate, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, thereby qualifying the crime as murder. With no modifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was proper. The civil indemnity of P50,000 was affirmed, but moral damages were increased to P50,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was thus affirmed with modification regarding the amount of moral damages.