GR 172606; (November, 2011) (Digest)

FACTS

On March 26, 1997, Glen Remigio, his wife Nila, and their two children were traveling in their Tamaraw FX along Marcos Highway in Antipolo, Rizal. Glen was driving. They allowed two men, later identified as accused-appellant Melanio Nugas and Jonie Araneta, to hitch a ride. Araneta carried a maroon plastic bag. While the vehicle was moving, the two men brandished knives, pointed them at Glen’s and Nila’s necks, and demanded to be taken to Sta. Lucia Mall. Upon reaching Kingsville Village, the man seated behind Glen (Nugas) suddenly stabbed Glen in the neck. The assailants then fled. Glen managed to drive toward a hospital but collapsed, causing an accident. He was rushed to a hospital but died. The autopsy revealed a fatal stab wound on the left side of his neck. Nila recovered the knife, its scabbard, and the maroon plastic bag from the vehicle, which contained documents identifying Araneta. During trial, Nila identified Nugas as the one who stabbed her husband. Nugas was charged with Murder.
Nugas admitted stabbing Glen but claimed self-defense. He testified that the vehicle was a passenger taxi, that he argued with Glen about overcharging, and that when he was about to alight, Glen punched him and leaned forward as if to get something (possibly a gun) from a clutch bag on the dashboard. Thinking Glen was reaching for a gun, Nugas stabbed him with his left hand to protect himself (“Inunahan ko na sya”). He stated he carried a knife for protection as he lived in a squatter’s area.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Nugas of Murder, sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. Nugas appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant, Melanio Nugas, has successfully proven the justifying circumstance of self-defense to exculpate himself from criminal liability for the killing of Glen Remigio.

RULING

No, the accused-appellant failed to prove self-defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder.
The Court emphasized that self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proved by the accused with credible, clear, and convincing evidence. When an accused invokes self-defense, he admits to the killing and assumes the burden of proving the elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
The Court found Nugas’s claim of self-defense untenable. First, unlawful aggression was not established. Nugas’s claim that Glen punched him and reached for a clutch bag was not credible. The prosecution evidence showed the victim was driving a family vehicle, not a taxi, and was suddenly attacked by armed men who had hijacked the vehicle. The nature of the attack-a sudden stabbing from behind while the victim was driving-negated any unlawful aggression initiated by Glen. Second, the means employed was not reasonably necessary. Even assuming Glen punched Nugas, the response of stabbing him in the neck with a knife was grossly disproportionate and excessive. Fists are no match for a lethal bladed weapon. Third, the treachery (alevosia) qualifying the killing to Murder was present. Nugas, seated directly behind the unsuspecting driver, employed a mode of attack that ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make.
The Court gave greater weight to the consistent and credible testimony of eyewitness Nila Remigio, who positively identified Nugas as the assailant. Nugas’s version was inconsistent with the physical evidence and the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Court upheld the findings of the RTC and CA, finding Nugas guilty of Murder beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the awarded damages were affirmed.