G.R. No. L-61961 October 18, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICOLAS MARCIALES and JOSE CASTILLO, alias “PEPE,” defendants, NICOLAS MARCIALES, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Defendants Nicolas Marciales and Jose Castillo were charged with murder for the killing of Josefino Ambito. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from witness Mercedes Baltazar, established that on January 28, 1971, in Barrio Lalab, Batan, Aklan, Marciales and Castillo approached Ambito, who was sitting on a bench. Marciales then stabbed Ambito multiple times with a tres cantos knife, while Castillo pushed the victim. Ambito died from his wounds. The trial court acquitted Castillo but convicted Marciales of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages.
Marciales appealed, interposing self-defense. He testified that the encounter began when Ambito, holding a knife, confronted him about being a witness against Ambito’s brother. Ambito allegedly lunged at him, and during a struggle for the knife, Marciales was wounded. He claimed he managed to gain possession of the knife and stabbed Ambito only to defend himself. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the prosecution’s version credible and ruling that treachery qualified the killing to murder.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether Marciales successfully proved self-defense; (2) whether the killing was attended by treachery to qualify it as murder; and (3) the propriety of the penalty and damages awarded.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It upheld the rejection of self-defense. One who invokes self-defense admits the killing and bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found Marciales’ claim of unlawful aggression unconvincing. His testimony was inconsistent with the number, location, and severity of the victim’s wounds, which indicated a determined attack rather than a spontaneous reaction during a struggle. The physical evidence contradicted his narrative.
However, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove treachery beyond reasonable doubt. Treachery requires: (1) the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution that ensure the offender’s safety from any defensive act, and (2) that such means were deliberately adopted. While the attack was sudden, there was no positive proof that Marciales consciously chose his mode of attack to eliminate risk. The mere fact that wounds were inflicted on the victim’s back does not, by itself, establish treachery. Absent clear evidence of this qualifying circumstance, the crime is homicide, not murder.
Consequently, the Court found Marciales guilty of homicide. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty was reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00, while the awards for moral and exemplary damages were deleted for lack of basis.