G.R. No. 91999 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ANTONIO PIAMONTE, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the trial court held: WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing facts, reasons and considerations and with the accused's voluntary admission that he stabbed the victim, Benjamin Sarmiento in the manner and method hereinabove described that caused his death, the Court holds and finds the herein accused, Antonio Piamonte, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder charged against him by the prosecution as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA: to pay the family or heirs of the victim civil indemnity amounting to P30,000.00; and to pay the costs. [23] Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT ACTED IN LAWFUL SELF-DEFENSE. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER AND BY IMPOSING HIM TO SUFFER AN IMPRISONMENT OF RECLUSION PERPETUA. [24] Accused-appellant's contentions are without merit. I. Having admitted killing the deceased, accused-appellant has the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense by showing (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed by him to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on his part in defending himself. Accused-appellant has failed to discharge this burden. A. His version of how he was able to wrest the knife from the deceased is incredible. He alleges that he fought three men, all of whom were bigger than he, with one (the deceased Benjamin Sarmiento) even armed with a knife. How despite these odds he was able to parry the knife thrust of the deceased and eventually wrest the knife from him is hard to understand. How he was able to wound his adversary not just once but twice, hitting him in vital portions of the body, although he was allegedly down, [25] is even harder to fathom. The location and the nature of the wounds (deep with clean edges) suggest that accused-appellant was not just defending himself but was actually attacking his victim with intent to kill. [26] Moreover, as held in People v. Jotoy , [27] the fact that he threw the knife away instead of surrendering it to the authorities and reporting the incident negates the claim of self-defense. B. The defense presented a witness, Juanito Araneta, whose testimony was, if not contradictory, ridiculous. His testimony raises serious doubts as to whether he really saw the incident. Accused-appellant claims that the deceased and his companions came back at around nine in the evening in order to carry out their earlier threat to kill him [28] and dragged him out of his house because he refused to come out. Juanito Araneta's version is that "the deceased and his companions told Antonio Piamonte to come down and when he went down, they again helped each [other] in mauling [him]." [29] In his attempt to show that accused-appellant was the victim, no