G.R. No. 61154 May 31, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Segundino “Golding” Jotoy, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Segundino “Golding” Jotoy was convicted of murder for the killing of Maximo Lao on December 27, 1979, in Davao City. The Information alleged the crime was committed with treachery and evident premeditation. The prosecution’s version, based primarily on the testimony of eyewitness Edna Bawasanta (the victim’s sister), was that on the night of the incident, she saw the accused, carrying a knife and looking angry, pass by her. She then looked back and saw the accused put his left arm around her brother’s neck and stab him repeatedly. The victim sustained five stab wounds, four of which were fatal, and died from hemorrhage. The accused invoked self-defense, claiming the deceased drew a knife first and that he only stabbed him after catching and twisting his arm. The trial court rejected this defense, found the accused guilty of murder, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

1. Whether the accused-appellant acted in self-defense.
2. Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were present to qualify the killing as murder.
3. Whether the lone testimony of a relative of the victim is sufficient for conviction.

RULING

1. On Self-Defense: The Supreme Court rejected the plea of self-defense. The accused failed to prove the essential element of unlawful aggression by clear and convincing evidence. His claim that the deceased attacked him first was a self-serving assertion unsupported by evidence, as he did not suffer any injuries. The nature, number, and location of the victim’s wounds (five stab wounds, four fatal) belied self-defense. Furthermore, the accused’s act of throwing the knife away after the incident and not reporting it to the authorities negated his claim of self-defense. Even assuming the deceased initially attacked, the unlawful aggression ceased when the accused immobilized him by catching and twisting his arm; the subsequent stabbing was no longer justified.
2. On Qualifying Circumstances: The Court found that neither treachery nor evident premeditation was established.
* Evident Premeditation: The prosecution failed to prove the required elements: the time the accused decided to commit the crime, an overt act showing his determination, and sufficient lapse of time for reflection. The fact that the accused and the deceased had a prior misunderstanding did not, by itself, establish evident premeditation.
* Treachery: The Court did not find the attack to be treacherous. The eyewitness testified to seeing a frontal attack. The fact that the accused passed the witness, who was five arms’ length ahead of the victim, while visibly angry and carrying a knife, indicated the victim likely saw the accused approaching and had an opportunity to prepare for the assault. The attack was therefore not so sudden and unexpected as to constitute treachery. Absent any qualifying circumstance, the crime is homicide, not murder.
3. On Credibility of Witness: The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution eyewitness, Edna Bawasanta. The mere fact of her relationship to the victim does not impair her credibility, especially given her clear and positive testimony compared to the accused’s unimpressive denials.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The conviction for Murder was REDUCED to Homicide. The accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to P50,000.00. The period of preventive imprisonment was to be credited in his favor.