G.R. No. 191721 ; January 12, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y ESTRADA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rogelio Dolorido y Estrada was charged with Murder for hacking and stabbing Daniel Estose to death on May 9, 2006, in Tago, Surigao del Sur. During pre-trial, Dolorido admitted killing Estose but invoked self-defense. The prosecution’s version, based on the stipulated Joint Affidavit of laborers Aniolito Avila and Adrian Avila, was that Dolorido, appearing angry, hid behind a coconut tree near the victim’s coconut drier. When Estose passed by, Dolorido suddenly hacked him twice on the arms and, when Estose fell while retreating, stabbed him in the chest, causing instantaneous death. The Avilas witnessed the incident from a distance and approached only after 20 minutes. Dolorido’s defense was that he confronted Estose about gathering his harvested coconuts; Estose replied “So, what about it?” and tried to unsheathe his bolo, prompting Dolorido to draw his own bolo and stab him. Dolorido claimed Estose was fatally wounded when he lunged at the bolo during a struggle. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dolorido of Murder qualified by treachery, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua with damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating self-defense.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder due to failure to prove treachery.
3. Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages despite the prosecution’s failure to present evidence to support their claim.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction.
1. Self-defense is absent. The essential elements of self-defense are: (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation from the person defending himself. The burden of proving all elements rests on the accused. The Court agreed with the trial court that Dolorido failed to prove unlawful aggression. His testimony that Estose tried to unsheathe his bolo was deemed incredible by the trial court, as it was inconsistent with his claim that Estose later tried to wrestle the bolo from him. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden, and imminent danger, not merely a threatening action. The positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who saw an unprovoked attack, were credited over Dolorido’s uncorroborated and self-serving assertion. Absent unlawful aggression, self-defense cannot be invoked.
2. Treachery is evident. Treachery under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code exists when the means of execution are deliberately adopted to ensure the crime’s commission without risk to the offender from the victim’s defense. The Court found the two elements present: (a) the means of execution gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means were deliberately or consciously adopted. The attack was sudden and unexpected; Dolorido hid and ambushed Estose, hacking him immediately as he passed by. The victim, who was merely walking, was unarmed and had no chance to put up a defense. The Avilas’ vantage point did not negate treachery, as they clearly saw the manner of attack. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated.
3. The award of damages is proper. The Court modified the damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The award of civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of murder. Moral damages are also awarded without need of proof due to the violent death of the victim. Temperate damages may be awarded when actual damages are proven but no evidence of the exact amount is presented. The Court awarded P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as temperate damages. Exemplary damages of P30,000 were also awarded due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. All damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to the awards of damages.