G.R. No. 188104, April 23, 2010.
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Benancio Mortera y Belarmino, Appellant.

FACTS

An Amended Information charged appellant Benancio Mortera y Belarmino with Murder for stabbing Robelyn Rojas y Mallari from behind with a knife on August 25, 2002, in Zamboanga City. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution presented eyewitnesses Ramil Gregorio and Jovel Veñales, who testified that after a brief discussion and a handshake, the appellant suddenly stabbed the victim in the back as the victim walked away. The victim’s mother, Leticia Rojas, testified on expenses. The appellant admitted the stabbing but claimed self-defense, alleging the victim and others accosted him for money and that the victim hit him first with a spray gun, prompting him to stab in defense. The trial court found him guilty of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing denial of due process and impartial trial due to the trial judge’s conduct, and reiterating self-defense or, alternatively, incomplete self-defense.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellant was denied due process and his right to an impartial trial.
2. Whether the justifying circumstance of self-defense is present.
3. Whether the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense is applicable.

RULING

1. No, the appellant was not denied due process or an impartial trial. The trial judge’s clarificatory questions during the appellant’s testimony, which highlighted the inconsistency between his “not guilty” plea and his subsequent claim of self-defense, were within the court’s authority to ascertain the truth and did not demonstrate bias or prejudgment. The judge’s remarks were a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
2. No, self-defense was not proven. The appellant failed to establish the essential element of unlawful aggression by clear and convincing evidence. The prosecution witnesses’ credible testimonies established that the appellant stabbed the unarmed victim from behind after they had shaken hands, negating any unlawful aggression on the victim’s part. The location, depth, and direction of the fatal wound corroborated the prosecution’s version.
3. No, incomplete self-defense cannot be appreciated. Since the primordial requisite of unlawful aggression was absent, the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense does not apply.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision with a modification on exemplary damages, reinstating the trial court’s award of P30,000.00. The appellant is found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages (in lieu of actual damages), and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.