G.R. No. 137296 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DIONISIO VICENTE Y QUINTO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused DIONISIO VICENTE is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder as charged and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . In addition, he has to indemnify the private offended party the amount of P50,000.00 for the death of Manuel Quinto, Jr. He is likewise ordered to pay P20,500.00 for funeral services, P10,000.00 for the construction of the tomb, P4,000.00 for the washed out of the tomb, P50,000.00 for the amount spent for the vigil, P2,000.00 for the autopsy of the cadaver of Manuel Quinto, Jr., P500.00 for the funeral mass, and P1,000.00 for the cemetery lot, or a total of P88,000.00 as actual damages, P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, and P50,000.00 as moral damages, plus costs of suit. The period under which the accused has been placed under detention is to be deducted against his sentence since reclusion perpetua, under RA 7659, has a range of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. " SO ORDERED ." [35] In finding the presence of treachery, the trial court ratiocinated: "It is an oft-repeated rule that treachery to be considered as a qualifying circumstance as charged in the information should be present at the inception of the incident. This rule, however, admits of an exception. When there is a second stage of the incident as in this case, treachery should be considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance if used as a means to insure the success of an attack against a fellow protagonist during the said second stage of the incident. Therefore, the public prosecutor who charged the accused with murder was correct in contrast to the recommendation of the Investigating Judge of the lower court who conducted the preliminary investigation x x x." [36] Unable to accept the verdict, appellant comes before us interposing the following assignments of error: "I THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE ACCUSED'S CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE; II THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE PRESENCE OF THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY IN THIS CASE; AND III ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR THE KILLING OF THE VICTIM, THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF HOMICIDE ONLY AND NOT OF MURDER." [37] Appellant argues that his claim of self-defense is buttressed by the fact that he immediately surrendered to the authorities after the incident and that the victim sustained only one stab wound. Also, he stresses that if a crime was indeed committed, it is only homicide because the attack was frontal and that a heated altercation preceded the stabbing. Lastly, he contends that since he sustained an injury in his upper left arm, as confirmed by Dr. Rivera, it follows that he is not the unlawful aggressor. The Solicitor General counters that appellant's claim of self-defense is weak and unfounded because: first , as between appellant and the victim, it was the former who had more reason to harbor ill-feelings; second, the victim's gesture of tapping appe