G.R. No. 152604 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LEONCIO PEDRIGAL Y SIMBALLANA @ "BAKLA". DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder punished and defined under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and therefore sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the heirs of the victim Ricky Napeñas P50,000.00 as indemnity for damages and to pay P20,000.00 as actual damages, plus costs of the suit. Hence, this appeal. Appellant insists that he killed Napeñas in self-defense. [4] Nonetheless, even assuming that he is found guilty, he submits that he should only be held liable for homicide and not murder. [5] In invoking self-defense, appellant is deemed to have admitted that he killed the victim, and the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove that he did not commit unlawful aggression. [6] The question of whether appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact. In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. [7] When the accused interposes self-defense, he must prove that: (1) he is not the unlawful aggressor; (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and (3) he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. [8] Appellant failed to prove these elements. Appellant alleges that he attacked Napeñas because the latter was suspected of robbing Pepe Briones, his brother-in-law. This, however, fails to qualify as unlawful aggression committed against appellant. Significantly, the most telling proof that appellant did not act in self-defense was the number of wounds he inflicted on Napeñas. Napeñas suffered seven (7) stab wounds, one of which proved to be fatal. The nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim belie the assertion of self-defense since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend. [9] In the alternative, appellant claims that he should have been convicted only of homicide, instead of murder, because of the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. He argues that it is not sufficient to show that the attack was sudden to establish treachery. He cites People v. Recepcion , [10] where it was held that for treachery to be appreciated, it must also be proved that the malefactor must have employed means, method or manner of execution that would ensure his safety from retaliatory act of the victim; and that such means, method or form of execution are consciously and deliberately adopted by the malefactor. In the case at bar, it was shown that appellant suddenly appeared from the dark and surprised the unsuspecting Napeñas, who was not in a position to defend himself as he was not expecting an attack on him. He was simply sitting down, having a conversation with two other persons and enjoying a cup of coffee. From all indications, appellant adopted this manner of executing his attack in a way that would ensure its success. In this regard, the trial court found: From the testimony of Dr. Her