G.R. No. 115689 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LINO ARTIAGA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused Lino Artiaga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and after appreciating the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime against him, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law [and] to pay the costs. The accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of Benjamin Serquiña in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS. Given this 10th day of December 1992 at Tagum, Davao, Philippines. Hence, this appeal. As already stated, accused-appellants claim is self defense and, in his appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in not acquitting him on this ground. Accordingly, the burden is on him to show the elements of self defense, to wit: 1 Unlawful aggression; 2 Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and 3 Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. First. The defense claims that there was unlawful aggression because Serquiña tried to hit accused-appellant with stones. However, the evidence of the defense is inconsistent and very doubtful. During his cross examination, defense witness Emeterio Geonzon testified that he did not see accused-appellant but only heard him and his companions talking while they were drinking inside the store of Edita Bacalso, because he (Geonzon) was just passing by, on his way to pan gold at the creek. It was accused-appellant who saw this witness and went with him to the panning area. This testimony is inconsistent with the affidavit executed by Geonzon before the Public Attorneys Office on August 28, 1991, wherein he stated that he was with Lino Artiaga in the store of Edita Bacalso, drinking tuba with six other friends. [6] His excuse that he had forgotten what he had stated in his affidavit because it had been a year ago only shows that his testimony was false, because had he known he had said he was with the group he would not have said he was not with them in his testimony in this case. If he was telling the truth, he could not have forgotten whether or not he was with the accused-appellant when the latter and others were in the store drinking. A witness who makes two sworn statements (an affidavit and testimony before the court) which are contradictory impeaches his own credit. Geonzon also testified that Artiaga did not die instantly but was able to run some distance. [7] However, his succeeding statements contradicted this because he said that after the stabbing, . . . I dont know what happened anymore because the light was put off and I also ran away. [8] As we have noted earlier, although the testimony of the accused recounted the same version of the incident as that narrated by Geonzon, there was also an inconsistency between these two testimonies regarding the time when Artiaga and Geonzon allegedly went to the creek to pan gold, whether it was before or after it had rained