G.R. No. 34019 ; January 29, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REYNALDO LINGATONG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of March 6, 1970, during a PTA dance in Tubod, Surigao del Norte, a confrontation occurred between the deceased, Eugenio Jamero, and Pedro Lingatong, the appellant’s brother. Pedro, appearing intoxicated, challenged people to a fight and bumped into Jamero. After an exchange of words, Pedro struck Jamero on the head with a bottle. Jamero retaliated by throwing a cup at Pedro, and the two began grappling with each other. At this moment, the appellant, Reynaldo Lingatong, approached from behind Jamero and stabbed him in the abdomen with a bolo. Jamero was later declared dead from the wound. The prosecution presented a dying declaration from the victim identifying the appellant as his assailant.
The appellant was charged with murder, qualified by treachery. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the appellant argued he acted in defense of his brother, that the crime was only homicide, not murder, and that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been appreciated to lower his penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the appellant validly acted in defense of a relative; (2) whether the killing was qualified by treachery to constitute murder; and (3) whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder. On the first issue, the defense of a relative was unjustified. The legal logic requires that the defense be necessary and the means employed reasonable. The evidence showed Pedro Lingatong initiated the aggression by clubbing the victim. Furthermore, during their grappling, the victim was unarmed and there was no showing that Pedro’s life was in imminent danger, negating any reasonable necessity for the appellant’s fatal intervention.
On the second issue, treachery (alevosia) was correctly appreciated. The qualifying circumstance is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from any defense the victim might make. The appellant stabbed the victim from behind while the latter was preoccupied and physically engaged in a struggle with another person. This sudden attack from a position of advantage rendered the victim helpless and unable to mount any defense, thereby satisfying the elements of treachery and qualifying the killing as murder.
Finally, the Court ruled that voluntary surrender was not present. For this mitigating circumstance to apply, the surrender must be spontaneous, showing an intent to unconditionally submit to authorities. The appellant’s claim was self-serving and contradicted by evidence, including his own sworn statement indicating he was arrested by agents of the law. Therefore, with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua for murder was correctly imposed. The Court also modified the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim.