G.R. No. 149784; July 14, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CAMILO ANSUS y DENIEGA, appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on January 10, 1999, appellant Camilo Ansus attended a drinking session where he made threatening remarks towards the victim, Crispin Domanico, while armed with a bolo. The bolo was temporarily taken from him. After the victim left, appellant retrieved his weapon and followed. That evening, the victim’s wife, Yolanda Domanico, testified she heard a shout from outside their house. She saw appellant hacking her husband outside their kitchen. The victim, before dying at the hospital, identified appellant as his assailant to witnesses who responded to the scene.
Appellant admitted to hacking the victim but claimed self-defense. He testified that while walking on a dark road, an unidentified man armed with a shotgun blocked his path and pointed the gun at him. Appellant claimed he drew his bolo and hacked the man in response, only later realizing it was the victim. He asserted he acted to repel an imminent attack.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of Murder and in not appreciating his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide but upheld the finding of guilt, rejecting the claim of self-defense. The Court emphasized that self-defense requires clear and convincing proof of three elements: unlawful aggression by the victim, lack of sufficient provocation from the accused, and reasonable means employed to repel the aggression. Unlawful aggression is the indispensable foundation. Appellant’s claim failed this test. His narrative that an unidentified armed man ambushed him was uncorroborated, inherently weak, and seriously doubtful. It contradicted the positive, credible, and consistent testimonies of the prosecution eyewitness, the victim’s wife. Self-defense, like alibi, is a weak defense easily concocted.
Furthermore, the Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence did not establish that the mode of attack was deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the victim’s defenselessness. The attack occurred suddenly, but the element of deliberate choice in the method was not clearly shown. Absent treachery, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The awards of damages were also modified: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of unsubstantiated actual damages.