GR 236297; (October, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 236297. October 17, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ARMANDO BAGABAY Y MACARAEG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that on September 7, 2010, accused-appellant Armando Bagabay, while armed with a kitchen knife, approached the victim, Alfredo Guevarra, Jr., who was giving change to his tricycle passengers. Without any warning, Bagabay grabbed Guevarra’s shoulder and stabbed him twice near the heart. When Guevarra attempted to flee and collapsed, Bagabay pursued and stabbed him once more before leaving the scene. Guevarra was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. Multiple eyewitnesses corroborated this sudden and violent attack.
The defense, however, interposed self-defense. Bagabay claimed that Guevarra initially cursed and threatened him, then pulled out a knife and attempted to stab him. Bagabay asserted that he merely grappled with Guevarra for the knife, causing Guevarra to stab himself twice. He attributed the conflict to a prior dispute within their tricycle association. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bagabay of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction for Murder, specifically in upholding the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal. It upheld the rejection of the claim of self-defense, as the burden of proof rests on the accused, and Bagabay failed to prove the essential elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. His uncorroborated testimony was insufficient to overthrow the prosecution’s evidence.
However, the Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. It found that treachery was not sufficiently established. The prosecution witnesses testified that the attack was sudden, but their accounts did not clearly demonstrate that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted a method of execution intended to ensure the killing without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. The attack, while swift, was frontal and initiated by grabbing the victim’s shoulder, which did not necessarily deprive the victim of an opportunity to defend himself. The qualifying circumstance of treachery must be proven as clearly as the crime itself. Consequently, without any qualifying circumstance, the killing constituted Homicide. The Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and modified the awarded damages accordingly.