G.R. No. 148912 ; September 10, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS, alias “Tomy,” appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on the evening of July 1, 2000, at a benefit dance in Asingan, Pangasinan, appellant Timoteo Escarlos stabbed Barangay Kagawad Antonio Balisacan multiple times, causing his death. Eyewitnesses, including the victim’s son Crisanto, testified they saw the stabbing under sufficient illumination. The victim’s brother, Marcelo Balisacan, reached the scene and heard the dying victim identify “Tomy Escarlos” as his assailant. The autopsy confirmed four stab wounds, two of which were fatal.
Appellant interposed self-defense, claiming the victim, who was drunk, initiated a confrontation by cursing and challenging him. He alleged the victim attempted to draw a knife, prompting him to stab in defense. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible, and convicted appellant of Murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to death.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of Murder, or if the crime committed was Homicide, and whether the penalty of death was properly imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide and reduced the penalty. By pleading self-defense, appellant admitted to the killing, thereby shifting to him the burden of proving its justification. The Court found he failed to prove the elements of self-defense, particularly unlawful aggression by the victim, as his claim that the victim was about to pull a knife was uncorroborated and belied by the location of the wounds, including one on the back.
However, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. The prosecution evidence showed the victim was aware of a possible confrontation, as there was a prior heated exchange between him and the appellant. Treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted without giving the victim any opportunity to defend himself. The victim’s awareness of the threat negated the sudden and unexpected attack essential for treachery. With no other qualifying circumstance established, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, not Murder. The penalty is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the absence of aggravating circumstances, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty. The award of damages was also modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence.