G.R. No. 96765 July 5, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SERGIO CURARATON y MONINIO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Sergio Curaraton y Moninio was charged with murder for the killing of Timoteo Cabagte on December 12, 1989, in Davao City. The information alleged that accused, armed with a bolo, with treachery and cruelty and outraging the corpse, attacked, assaulted, and hacked Cabagte, inflicting mortal wounds. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs. Accused-appellant seeks reversal on the ground of self-defense or, alternatively, to be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The prosecution evidence, as adopted by the Supreme Court, established that on the evening of December 12, 1989, accused-appellant, armed with a bolo and a big stone, challenged Sergio Tonacao at his house. After Tonacao came down, appellant shook hands with him and with the victim, Timoteo Cabagte, assuring Cabagte, “Manong, you have nothing to do with this.” After Cabagte left to return to a neighbor’s house, appellant followed and hid behind a coconut tree. When Cabagte passed by, appellant suddenly struck him with the rock, causing him to fall, and then immediately thrust his bolo into Cabagte’s body several times and continued hacking him as he lay motionless. The necropsy report showed eleven wounds, with the cause of death being massive hemorrhage. Appellant surrendered himself and the bolo at the Calinan Patrol Station the following morning.

ISSUE

1. Whether accused-appellant acted in self-defense.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be credited to him.
3. Whether the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and disregard of age were correctly appreciated by the trial court.
4. The proper penalty and civil indemnity.

RULING

1. No, accused-appellant failed to establish self-defense. He bore the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means, and lack of sufficient provocation. The evidence showed that after a conciliatory handshake, appellant ambushed the victim, who was walking peacefully. His claim of being attacked by the victim with a nipa frond was not credible. Even assuming such an attack, the means employed—hacking the victim multiple times with a bolo—were excessive and unreasonable against a nipa frond. The first element of unlawful aggression was not present.
2. Yes, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered. The evidence showed that immediately after the slaying, appellant walked straight to the Calinan Patrol Station to surrender.
3. No, the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and disregard of age were not present. Cruelty requires that the infliction of multiple wounds was done unnecessarily while the victim was still alive to prolong suffering; here, the victim was already dead or unconscious when the additional hacks were inflicted. Disregard of age is absorbed by treachery.
4. The crime committed is murder qualified by treachery. With the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is an imprisonment term of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity is increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with these modifications.