G.R. No. 180512 October 17, 2008
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Noel Cuasay, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Noel Cuasay was charged with Murder for stabbing Eduardo Ansuli on October 15, 1997, around 1:00 a.m., in Barangay Estrella, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. The information alleged the killing was qualified by treachery. During trial, prosecution eyewitness Rizon Reyes testified that while he, the victim, and others were playing mahjong at a wake, accused-appellant, who was seated beside the victim and had been joking with them, suddenly stabbed the victim with a Swiss-type knife as the victim was picking a tile. Reyes shouted “huwag” but the attack proceeded. The victim ran home and was found dead the next morning. Another witness, Flor Paglinawan, testified that accused-appellant admitted the stabbing to her. The prosecution also presented a necropsy report. Accused-appellant pleaded self-defense, claiming the victim boxed him three times after suspecting him of stealing PhP 20, and uttered insults, prompting him to stab the victim with a fan knife. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages but awarding PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the justifying circumstance of self-defense and the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation.
2. Assuming arguendo that accused-appellant is culpable, whether the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the CA Decision with MODIFICATION regarding damages.
1. On Self-Defense and Passion or Obfuscation: The Court ruled that accused-appellant failed to prove the requisites of self-defense. By admitting the killing, the burden shifted to him to prove unlawful aggression by the victim, lack of sufficient provocation, and reasonable means to repel aggression. His testimony that the victim boxed him three times was uncorroborated and deemed not credible, as it was unnatural for other mahjong players and barangay tanods present not to intervene. The prosecution witness’s account was straightforward and credible. Consequently, self-defense cannot prosper. The claim of passion or obfuscation also fails, as there was no evidence of any unlawful act by the victim that could have produced such a state of mind immediately before the stabbing.
2. On Treachery: The Court affirmed the presence of treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed when the victim was unarmed and unsuspecting while picking a mahjong tile, ensuring the execution without risk to accused-appellant from any defense the victim might make.
3. On Damages: The Court modified the CA decision by reinstating the award of moral damages. In murder cases, the heirs of the victim are automatically entitled to PhP 50,000 as moral damages without need of proof due to the evident emotional suffering.
The dispositive portion affirmed the conviction for Murder qualified by treachery with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered accused-appellant to pay the heirs of Eduardo Ansuli PhP 50,000 as moral damages, in addition to other damages awarded by the lower courts.