G.R. No. 147667; January 21, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. RESTY TIGLE, Appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on the evening of December 17, 1997, in Ozamiz City, appellant Resty Tigle fatally stabbed Luisa Lapera. The victim’s mother-in-law, Catalina Clarin, testified that after Luisa came to her house to buy cigarettes, she heard a commotion and later saw appellant holding a bolo with Luisa lying face down. Appellant told her to turn off the light. The post-mortem examination by Dr. Daniel Medina revealed Luisa suffered six stab wounds, one of which penetrated her heart, causing her death. The prosecution also presented Saturnino Lapera, the victim’s son, who testified about a prior incident where appellant threatened him after being caught stealing coconuts, which the trial court considered to prove evident premeditation.
The defense, however, presented a different version. Appellant claimed he acted in incomplete self-defense. He testified that on the night in question, Luisa unexpectedly attacked him with a knife because she was angry about the coconut theft case. A struggle ensued, and he was able to wrestle the knife away from her, after which he stabbed her. Two defense witnesses corroborated seeing appellant with injuries after the incident. The trial court rejected this defense and convicted appellant of murder qualified by treachery, with aggravating circumstances, sentencing him to death.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, and disregard of age and sex.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery with moral certainty. The evidence did not clearly establish how the attack commenced. The lone eyewitness, Catalina Clarin, did not see the inception of the assault. Appellant’s claim of a sudden attack by the victim, which the defense witnesses partially supported by his injuries, introduced reasonable doubt on whether the mode of attack was deliberately adopted to ensure the victim’s defenselessness. Without clear proof of the manner of execution, treachery cannot be appreciated.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the aggravating circumstances were not proven. Evident premeditation requires proof of the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating this determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and execution. The testimony regarding the prior coconut theft incident was too remote and did not convincingly show a direct link to a deliberate plan to kill Luisa three years later. The other aggravating circumstances were absorbed in the crime itself or not sufficiently established. Consequently, the killing constituted homicide, not murder. The Court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered him to pay ₱50,000 as civil indemnity.