G.R. No. L-68857 November 21, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ANACLETO MONTEJO y MAGAN, respondent.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Anacleto Montejo was charged with murder for the killing of Felizardo Margarito on May 11, 1978, in Quezon City. The prosecution established that the victim, a crippled man who used crutches, was accosted by Montejo and others over a dispute concerning a water pail. Montejo challenged Margarito to a fight, which the latter declined. Montejo then forced Margarito to sit on a staircase, where his companions held the victim’s arms. While Margarito was thus restrained and defenseless, Montejo stabbed him in the chest. Subsequently, after a gunshot incident that wounded Montejo, his brother Pedro returned and hacked the fallen victim on the head, causing his death.
The trial court convicted Montejo of murder, qualified by evident premeditation, and initially sentenced him to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. Following the abolition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution , the penalty was automatically commuted to reclusion perpetua. Montejo initially accepted this penalty but, through his counsel, pursued the appeal, claiming he acted in self-defense.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the accused-appellant acted in self-defense, thereby exonerating him from criminal liability. A secondary issue involves the correct qualification of the crime and the proper penalty to be imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court rejected the claim of self-defense. For self-defense to exculpate an accused, the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation must concur. The evidence overwhelmingly disproved unlawful aggression from the victim. The victim, physically disabled and outnumbered, was forcibly restrained by the appellant’s companions before being stabbed. He posed no imminent threat to the appellant. The appellant’s act of stabbing a helpless, seated victim held by others cannot be construed as a reasonable or necessary response to any aggression. Therefore, the justifying circumstance of self-defense is absent.
The Court also modified the trial court’s findings on the qualifying circumstances. Evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no evidence of sufficient time between the plan and execution to reflect cool deliberation. However, treachery was duly established. The attack was executed in a manner that ensured the accomplishment of the killing without risk to the appellant arising from any defense the victim might make. The victim was seated and held immobile by accomplices, rendering him completely defenseless when stabbed. Treachery thus qualified the killing to murder.
Considering the abolition of the death penalty, the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Montejo to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to P30,000.00. The trial court’s decision was modified accordingly.