G.R. No. L-35369 August 21, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LAURENZO (LORENZO) ALQUIZAR, defendant.

FACTS

The case involves the fatal stabbing of fellow prisoner Fernando Rivas by the accused, Laurenzo Alquizar, within the premises of the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa on April 10, 1971. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from prison guard Ludovico Bautista, established that Bautista heard a cry of pain, turned, and saw Alquizar stabbing Rivas. Alquizar then held Rivas and inflicted a second stab wound before Rivas fled. Alquizar was apprehended by prison personnel while pursuing the victim.
Alquizar interposed the defense of self-defense, claiming Rivas initially boxed him without provocation. He testified that he retaliated, and when Rivas drew an improvised bladed weapon, he wrestled it away and used it to stab Rivas. This version was corroborated by two fellow prisoners. However, the prosecution presented rebuttal evidence to show these witnesses were not actually present at the scene of the crime.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the accused acted in self-defense. A secondary issue involves the correct classification of the crime and the proper penalty, given the accused’s status as a prisoner and the alleged presence of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court rejected the plea of self-defense. The Court found the accused’s version implausible, noting the absence of motive for the initial attack by Rivas, the accused’s own training as a boxer making a mere boxing assault improbable, and the illogical sequence of events where an armed assailant would box before using his weapon. The Court also noted the accused’s failure to immediately claim self-defense to prison authorities. The testimony of prison guard Bautista was deemed credible and sufficient to establish that the killing was not done in self-defense.
However, the Court also ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven. The lone eyewitness did not see the inception of the attack, and the accused’s extrajudicial confession, which might have detailed the manner of assault, was inadmissible due to doubts regarding its voluntariness and compliance with constitutional rights. With treachery unproven, the crime is homicide, not murder. As a quasi-recidivist, Alquizar is penalized under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal; applying the maximum period due to quasi-recidivism results in a sentence of 20 years of reclusion temporal maximum. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was not appreciated, as the accused was apprehended while still pursuing the victim. The death penalty was set aside and the accused was convicted of homicide.