GR 206381; (March, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Daniel Matibag y De Villa @ “Dani” or “Danilo”, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Daniel Matibag was charged with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the killing of Enrico Clar de Jesus Duhan. The Amended Information alleged that on March 27, 2005, Matibag, armed with a Beretta pistol, with intent to kill and with treachery, attacked and shot Duhan while the latter was defenseless, causing his death, with the special aggravating circumstance of using an unlicensed firearm. Matibag pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version was that Matibag confronted Duhan, punched him, and then shot him multiple times while he was on the ground. A police officer positively identified Matibag, and an autopsy confirmed the fatal gunshot wounds. In his defense, Matibag claimed self-defense, alleging that he approached Duhan to reconcile, but Duhan pushed his hand away, uttered provocative words, and made a motion as if to pull something from his waist, which led Matibag to shoot him in fear. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Matibag of Murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction of Matibag for Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court deferred to the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, finding no reason to disturb them. The prosecution proved all elements of Murder. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present because the attack on Duhan was sudden, unexpected, and without provocation, rendering him defenseless, even if frontal. Matibag’s plea of self-defense failed as he could not prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; the treacherous manner of the attack negated such a claim, and his uncorroborated allegation that Duhan was reaching for something was belied by the fact no weapon was recovered from the victim. The special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm was properly appreciated pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. Following prevailing jurisprudence, the Court increased the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each, and affirmed the award of actual damages.