G.R. No. 123456

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JUAN DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

PROMULGATED: [Date]

D E C I S I O N

LEONEN, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding accused-appellant Juan Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The prosecution established that on the evening of January 15, 2010, in Barangay San Isidro, the victim, Pedro Santos, was walking home from a store when accused-appellant, without any warning or provocation, suddenly emerged from behind a tree and stabbed him multiple times with a bladed weapon. The attack was witnessed by prosecution witness Maria Clara, who testified that the victim was unarmed, unaware, and in no position to defend himself. The victim died from multiple stab wounds, as confirmed by the medico-legal officer.

The defense, on the other hand, interposed self-defense. Accused-appellant claimed that the victim was the aggressor, having attacked him first with a knife following a heated argument earlier that day. He alleged that he was able to wrestle the knife away from the victim and, in the ensuing struggle, accidentally stabbed him.

The Regional Trial Court rejected the claim of self-defense, giving full credence to the clear and categorical testimony of the eyewitness. It found that the manner of attack—sudden, unexpected, and from behind—indubitably qualified the killing with treachery (alevosia). It thus convicted accused-appellant of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded.

In this appeal, accused-appellant raises the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction, insisting that he acted in self-defense.

The appeal lacks merit.

For self-defense to exculpate an accused from criminal liability, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The burden of evidence shifts to the accused, and he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s case.

Here, accused-appellant failed to discharge this burden. His claim of unlawful aggression initiated by the victim is uncorroborated and belied by the physical evidence and the credible testimony of the eyewitness. The medico-legal report indicated that the victim sustained multiple deep stab wounds, some of which were on his back, inconsistent with a face-to-face struggle. The location, number, and severity of the wounds betray a determined attack, not an accidental result of a scuffle.

Furthermore, the testimony of Maria Clara remains steadfast, credible, and consistent on material points. She had no motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellant. Her narration that the attack was sudden and from a position of advantage, leaving the victim no opportunity to resist, firmly establishes the qualifying circumstance of treachery. When an attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim is rendered unable to defend himself, treachery is present.

The trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight and respect, as it had the direct opportunity to observe their demeanor and deportment on the stand. We find no reason to deviate from its findings.

As to the penalty, Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the crime, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.

Finally, we affirm the modified award of damages by the Court of Appeals, in line with prevailing jurisprudence: Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, and Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until fully paid. Actual damages must be supported by receipts; in its absence, temperate damages in the amount of Php50,000.00 are awarded.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant JUAN DELA CRUZ is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Pedro Santos the amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages, Php75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and Php50,000.00 as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.