G.R. No. 167954 ; January 31, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PERLITO MONDIGO y ABEMALEZ, appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on September 27, 1998, appellant Perlito Mondigo, Damaso Delima, and others were drinking in Malolos, Bulacan. Damaso’s son, Anthony, later joined. At around 6:00 p.m., appellant, without warning, hacked Anthony on the head with a jungle bolo, rendering him unconscious. Appellant then turned to Damaso, who was lying on his back, and repeatedly hacked him, resulting in Damaso’s death. A witness, Lolita Lumagi, corroborated the attack on Damaso.
Appellant claimed self-defense, alleging a quarrel ensued during the drinking session where Anthony, Damaso, and another son ganged up on him. He claimed he fled to his house, grabbed a flat bar to hit Anthony, and then wrestled a bolo from Damaso, which he used to hack Damaso in defense. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Murder for Damaso’s death and Serious Physical Injuries for attacking Anthony, mitigated by intoxication. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the conviction for attacking Anthony to Frustrated Murder.

ISSUE

Whether appellant is guilty of Murder and Frustrated Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the appellate court’s decision, finding appellant guilty of Homicide for Damaso’s death and Frustrated Murder for the attack on Anthony. By invoking self-defense, appellant admitted the acts but claimed justification. The burden thus shifted to him to prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means, and lack of provocation. The Court found his account uncorroborated and improbable. The nature of Anthony’s wound—a 15.25-centimeter laceration—was inconsistent with being struck by a flat bar and indicated a bladed weapon. Assuming Damaso initially attacked, any aggression ceased when he dropped the bolo, negating the necessity for appellant to retrieve and use it against him.
Treachery attended the attack on Anthony, qualifying the crime as Frustrated Murder. Appellant’s sudden, unexpected assault with a bolo to the head, which rendered Anthony immediately unconscious, ensured the execution of the attack without risk to appellant. However, for Damaso’s killing, treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution witnesses did not see the inception of the attack on Damaso; Lumagi only saw appellant hacking an already prone victim. Without clear evidence that the mode of attack was deliberately chosen to facilitate the killing without risk, the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be presumed. Thus, the killing is Homicide, not Murder. The Court affirmed the penalties and damages as modified.