GR 171271; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171271 August 31, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA y PAHILANGA, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Elberto Tubongbanua, the family driver of Atty. Evelyn Sua-Kho, was charged with Murder. On February 12, 2001, inside the victim’s condominium unit, appellant stabbed Atty. Sua-Kho multiple times, resulting in her death. Prosecution witnesses, including the housemaid Marissa Hiso, testified they heard screams and witnessed the stabbing. The medico-legal report detailed eighteen stab wounds, several fatal. Prior to the incident, appellant had confided in the victim’s secretary and a colleague about his grudges against her, even stating he would kill her. He fled using the victim’s car but was later arrested.
At trial, appellant raised self-defense. He claimed the victim attacked him with a knife during an argument about her secret trips with a male companion, and he merely wrested the knife and stabbed her in retaliation. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of Murder, and whether the penalty imposed was proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The defense of self-defense was rejected. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Appellant’s claim of unlawful aggression by the victim was not credible. The number, location, and severity of the victim’s wounds—eighteen stab wounds, including four on the heart—were grossly disproportionate to appellant’s single minor wrist injury, negating any reasonable necessity. This indicated a determined assault, not a spontaneous reaction.
The killing was attended by treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, denying the unarmed victim any chance to defend herself. Evident premeditation was not sufficiently established, as the prosecution failed to prove the time when appellant determined to commit the crime and an act manifestly indicating his perseverance. However, the qualifying circumstance of dwelling was present, as the killing occurred inside the victim’s home without provocation from her. The penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua to death. With one aggravating circumstance (dwelling) and no mitigating circumstance, the imposable penalty was death. However, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the death penalty, the Court imposed reclusion perpetua without parole. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs.