FLORO GALORIO Y GAPAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Floro Galorio y Gapas was charged with Homicide for stabbing Andres Muring to death on May 24, 2006, in Alicia, Bohol. The incident occurred during a fiesta coronation night. The Information alleged he attacked and stabbed the victim, causing fatal injury. The prosecution’s evidence included affidavits from witnesses Leoncio Cagande and Antonio Muring, who stated they saw petitioner chase the victim, who stumbled and fell, and then stab him in the abdomen while he was helpless on the ground. The victim’s death certificate indicated death from hypovolemic shock due to a stab wound penetrating the liver. Petitioner, in his Counter-Affidavit and testimony, claimed self-defense and defense of a relative. He asserted that he had scolded the victim’s son for improper parking. Later, the victim arrived shouting, immediately hacked him with a bolo, cutting off his ring finger and wounding his chest. When petitioner saw the victim on top of his nephew Eric about to stab him, petitioner retrieved a bayonet from his motorcycle and stabbed the victim in the right rib to stop the attack. He testified he was weak, dazed, and holding his protruding intestine when he stabbed the victim. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of Homicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Homicide, specifically in not appreciating the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a relative.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is found guilty of Homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the victim’s heirs. The Court held that petitioner failed to prove the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. The nature and number of his wounds (a cut-off finger and a chest wound) were not indicative of a determined aggression that would justify his lethal response. His claim of defense of a relative also failed, as the situation did not show an imminent and unlawful aggression against his nephew at the precise moment he stabbed the victim. The victim was already walking away when petitioner retrieved his bayonet and pursued him. The means employed (use of a deadly weapon to stab an unarmed, retreating victim) was not reasonably necessary. Treachery was not proven, as the attack was frontal and the victim was armed with a bolo earlier in the altercation. The crime is Homicide, qualified by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was duly proven.
