G.R. No. L-30742 April 30, 1976
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AURELIO MOJICA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Aurelio Mojica, was convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the fatal stabbing of Diosdado Tormon. The prosecution evidence established that on December 2, 1968, while the victim was seated inside a parked vehicle, Mojica approached and stabbed him in the abdomen with a butcher’s knife without any prior exchange of words. The knife remained embedded, and Mojica fled but was apprehended by a nearby policeman. The victim died the following day from the severe wound, which caused extensive internal injuries. Mojica admitted to the stabbing but claimed self-defense, alleging that the deceased had grabbed him by the collar and choked him.
A prior incident on November 16, 1968, established motive. During an altercation, the deceased, who was bigger, had slapped Mojica and ordered him to kneel. After being separated, Mojica was heard vowing retaliation within a month. The trial court rejected the plea of self-defense, finding the prosecution witnesses credible and the evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder and rejecting his claims of self-defense and the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The plea of self-defense was correctly rejected as the appellant failed to prove its essential elements. For self-defense to exculpate an accused, the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation must be established. The evidence conclusively showed that the deceased was seated passively inside the vehicle when Mojica, without warning, initiated the attack. There was no unlawful aggression emanating from the victim. Testimonies from the driver and another witness positively contradicted Mojica’s claim of being choked, confirming he was the aggressor.
Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the claim of passion and obfuscation. While a previous humiliating incident provided a motive, the interval of one month between that provocation and the killing negated the immediate and overpowering emotional state required for such a mitigating circumstance. The killing was deliberate, as evidenced by Mojica’s prior threat and his surreptitious approach with a concealed weapon. The constitutional presumption of innocence was correctly overcome by the prosecution’s evidence, which the trial court conscientiously appraised. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the indemnity were thus upheld.