GR 97933; (September, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97933 September 30, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO APAWAN y TAPI, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that on August 13, 1984, in Zamboanga City, the victim Edgardo Yap was having a snack with his cousins, the Escala sisters, in their kitchen. Appellant Antonio Apawan, also a cousin, suddenly appeared from behind the seated victim and stabbed him twice with a knife—first on the left lumbar region and then on the right thigh. The victim stood up but collapsed and died from the fatal first wound. Appellant then turned his aggression towards Ermie Escala, who escaped by jumping out a window. His sister Estela managed to wrest the knife from him. Appellant presented a different version, claiming self-defense. He alleged the victim confronted and punched him, leading to a struggle during which he managed to grab a knife from the victim and used it.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) the credibility of the prosecution witnesses; (2) the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery; and (3) the applicability of the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation and voluntary surrender.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but increased the civil indemnity to P50,000.00. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, emphasizing that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were clear, consistent, and credible on material points, particularly regarding the sudden and unexpected attack from behind. The claim of bias was unsubstantiated. The Court ruled that treachery was duly proven. The attack was executed from behind while the victim was seated and unaware, ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the appellant. This manner of attack squarely met the legal definition of alevosia. The mitigating circumstances were correctly rejected. There was no evidence of sufficient provocation by the victim that immediately preceded the act. The claim of voluntary surrender was also unavailing, as the evidence showed the appellant was arrested by responding policemen and did not voluntarily surrender himself to authorities.