G.R. No. 181085 ; October 23, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. NEMESIO ABURQUE, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Nemesio Aburque was charged with the murder of Miguel Ablay. The prosecution alleged that on October 5, 1998, at the victim’s dwelling in Sibulan, Negros Oriental, appellant, armed with a “pinuti” (bolo), willfully stabbed Ablay, inflicting a fatal wound. The information cited treachery, evident premeditation, and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. At arraignment, appellant admitted the killing but pleaded self-defense, triggering a reverse trial where the burden of proof shifted to him.
Appellant testified that he was a guest at Ablay’s house for a ritual and drinking session. He claimed that Ablay became unruly, brandishing a knife and later arnis sticks. Appellant stated he was accidentally hit on the forehead by an arnis stick, and when he tried to leave, Ablay kicked and pinned him to the door, uttering threats. Fearing Ablay would grab his bolo, appellant preemptively stabbed him. He was then beaten by other guests, Aklan and Banaybanay. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that the victim was merely sitting when appellant suddenly stood and stabbed him without provocation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s finding that appellant is guilty of murder, rejecting his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. When an accused admits the killing and pleads self-defense, he assumes the burden of proving its elements—unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation—by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found appellant failed to discharge this burden. His claim of unlawful aggression was not credible. The alleged initial hitting by the arnis stick was admitted by appellant himself to be possibly accidental during a demonstration. The subsequent act of the victim in pinning him down was uncorroborated and belied by the physical evidence and the consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
The legal logic centers on the evaluation of evidence. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. The prosecution witnesses credibly established that the attack was sudden and that the victim, who was unarmed and seated, offered no provocation. This manner of execution ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, constituting treachery, which qualifies the killing to murder. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was not appreciated due to the victim’s invitation, but the presence of treachery sufficed. Appellant’s version was inconsistent and improbable, failing to substantiate the required elements for a justifying circumstance.