GR 148810; (November, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148810; November 18, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. HEVER PAULINO y BIYAYA, appellant.
FACTS
On August 18, 1996, appellant Hever Paulino, nephew of the victim Leonarda Paulino, passed by her house and asked for water. After being given a drink, he was advised by Leonarda to go home. Appellant left angrily. Later, as Leonarda and her daughter Joy walked to a nearby house, Joy saw appellant, who was about two meters behind them, throw a rock that hit Leonarda’s head. The victim fell and later died in the hospital due to the fatal head injury. Appellant admitted throwing the stone but claimed he acted in self-defense. He testified that after an altercation with Leonarda’s daughter, the victim chased him with a scythe, prompting him to throw a stone to defend himself.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether the trial court erred in: (1) finding appellant guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt; (2) rejecting his claim of self-defense; and (3) appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On self-defense, the Court emphasized that by admitting the killing, appellant assumed the burden of proving its justifying circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. He failed to establish the essential element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. His claim that Leonarda chased him with a scythe was uncorroborated and inconsistent with the physical evidence and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses, who saw him attack the victim from behind without any prior physical threat from her. The means employed—throwing a large stone at the victim’s head—was also not reasonably necessary to repel an alleged attack.
Regarding treachery, the Court found it duly proven. The attack was sudden and from behind, executed in a manner that ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend herself. She was unaware and unprepared, making the assault deliberate and treacherous. The Court also noted appellant’s voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. However, since the prescribed penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death, and the crime was attended by a mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity was affirmed.