G.R. No. 129252 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FRANCISCO CABER, SR., ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby finds accused, Francisco Caber, Sr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and considering in favor of the accused the mitigating circumstance of passion [or] obfuscation, the Court hereby imposes upon the accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua, together with all its accessory penalties. Furthermore, the Court hereby orders accused to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 by way of indemnification for the damage and suffering caused the heirs of the victim. [9] Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that ¾ I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF JULIAN RAMA AND DISREGARDING COMPLETELY THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT THAT HE WAS PREVIOUSLY ATTACKED BY THE VICTIM AND HE MERELY ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. II. GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THERE WAS NO SELF-DEFENSE, THE COURT A QUO STILL ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF MURDER AND [IN] NOT APPRECIATING FURTHER THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. [10] First . Accused-appellant claims he acted in self-defense in killing Ramirez. He contends that the prosecution witness, Julian Rama, witnessed only the second stage of his encounter with Ramirez, i.e. , when he chased Ramirez and stabbed him, but the initial aggression was actually committed by Ramirez by attacking him. [11] This contention has no merit. To begin with, by invoking self-defense, accused-appellant admits to the crime for which he is charged and, therefore, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove (a) that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression; (b) that there was reasonable necessity for the means employed by him to repel the aggression; and (c) that there was sufficient provocation on his (accused-appellant's) part. [12] Proof of the first requirement (unlawful aggression of the victim) is indispensable since the theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. Even if initially there was unlawful aggression, the person attacked has no more right to kill or wound the former aggressor the moment the aggression ceases. When the danger or risk to him has disappeared, there should be a corresponding cessation of hostilities on the part of the person defending himself. [13] In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution shows that accused-appellant ran after and then stabbed Ramirez twice, hitting him on the chest as the latter tried to seek cover behind Rama. This circumstance negates the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Accused-appellant claims that it was Ramirez who initially attacked him with a knife. Assuming this to be true, it would nonetheless appear that Ramirez's unlawful aggression had already ceased when he was stabbed by accused-appellant because, by the latter's own account, Ramirez ran away after accused-appellant turned the knife toward him and thrust it to him. I