GR 92509; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92509 ; March 13, 1991
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Tomas Gadiana, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On March 19, 1988, during a barangay fiesta in Lutoban, Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, Constantino Paltinca was conversing with friends near a store. The accused, Tomas Gadiana, surreptitiously approached Paltinca from behind and stabbed him in the abdomen with a hunting knife. With the knife still embedded, Paltinca chased Gadiana for a short distance before collapsing. He was rushed to the hospital but died later that evening from the fatal wound.
Gadiana admitted to the stabbing but claimed self-defense. He testified that Paltinca had held him up, demanded money, and threatened him with a knife. Gadiana alleged he kicked Paltinca, causing him to fall and drop the knife, after which Gadiana picked up the weapon and stabbed Paltinca. He surrendered to the police thereafter.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting Gadiana of murder, despite alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and his claim of self-defense.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Juan Rafal and Temistocles Gajelloma pertained to minor details (e.g., whether the victim chased his assailant, the exact words uttered, or the precise posture of the victim). The Court ruled these discrepancies did not undermine their credibility, as witnesses to a startling event may naturally differ on non-essential points while concurring on the central fact of the stabbing. Their positive identification of Gadiana as the assailant remained consistent and credible.
On the claim of self-defense, the Court held that Gadiana failed to prove its elements by clear and convincing evidence. Assuming unlawful aggression occurred when Paltinca allegedly threatened him, such aggression ceased when Paltinca fell and was disarmed after being kicked. At that point, Gadiana could have simply fled; instead, he seized the knife and inflicted a fatal stab wound. This response was unreasonable and excessive, negating self-defense. The manner of attack—sudden and from behind while the victim was unaware—constituted treachery, qualifying the killing as murder. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.