Uncorroborated defense

Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights does not incur criminal liability for the crime he may have committed as a result of such act. This is a justifying circumstance of self defense under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code as amended. But what must be proven in order that he will not incur criminal liability? This is the main question answered in our case for today. Also discussed here is treachery which qualifies the killing of a person from homicide to murder. If the victim has been warned of the possible danger to his person, can there still be treachery in the killing?

This case involves a family feud between Mariel and his older brother, 71-year-old Dante due to the latter’s desire to deprive Mariel of her legitimate share in the common residential compound they inherited from their parents. Mariel has two sons, Migs and Kiko who are both aware of the bad blood between their mother and maternal uncle Dante, and are thus so worried about the abusive and unfair treatment of Dante.

The tragic incident happened one afternoon that resulted in the death of Dante. When the police investigated the killing, Migs surrendered to the Barangay Captain and admitted that he was the one who killed his uncle Dante. So he was indicted for the crime of murder by “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stabbing Dante to death with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery. During the hearing of the case, the prosecution and the defense differed in their story of what happened.

The prosecution first presented Natividad, the wife of Dante who was present when the killing happened. She testified that on said afternoon, Migs suddenly arrived at their house looking for Dante. Surprised at Mig’s arrival she asked why. Instead of answering her, Migs barged into their house and proceeded to Dante’s room. Seeing that Migs was armed with a bladed weapon, she shouted at Dante to close the room’s door. And while Dante was trying to close the door, Migs grabbed his neck and stabbed him at the right chest while uttering “I will kill you.” Natividad tried to stop Migs but she was pushed away and likewise stabbed at the right wrist and forehead. And despite the pleas of Natividad and Dante, Migs continued to stab Dante several times.

The stabbing was witnessed by Moy, a tricyle driver in the employ of Dante and Natividad, who heard the screams of Natividad. Moy grabbed Migs and brought him outside of the room. But Migs freed himself and returned to the room and to continue stabbing Dante until he died. Then Migs turned his ire on Moy who rushed out of the house and met Kiko whom he entreated to stop Migs. But Kiko instead grabbed Moy’s neck although Moy was able to free himself and rushed to the police station where he reported the incident.

Also presented as witnesses were the policemen who went to the crime scene to investigate what happened as well as the doctor who conducted an autopsy on Dante and testified that the cause of death was multiple stab wounds on the head chest and back region.

On the other hand Migs testified and claimed that it was Dante who went at the store he was tending inside the compound and yelled at him to step outside. Then Dante swung his knife at him thus injuring his knee. He thus run inside their kitchen and armed himself with a chisel with which he stabbed Dante several times until he died.

The Regional Trial Court however found Migs guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of Dante civil indemnity, actual, moral and exemplary damages totaling P225,000. The RTC ruled that the totality of the circumstances lead to the inevitable conclusion that the victim was caught unaware and unable to defend himself since the accused Migs deliberately chose a manner of attack that insured the attainment of his violent intention with no risk to himself. The fact that Natividad was able to shout at Dante to close his room and thus may have been warned of possible danger to his life, does not mean that no treachery exists because the attack was carried out in such a manner as to make it impossible for Dante to retaliate. It was sudden, unexpected and right inside his house and he was unarmed with no opportunity to defend himself. And because he was already 71 years old, he could not have been in a position to swiftly and sufficiently ward off the attack. Dante sustained multiple stab wounds in front and at the back based on the autopsy report.

Migs’ version that the stabbing incident happened outside the house cannot be given credence because it is uncorroborated unlike the testimonies of Natividad and Moy which was corroborated by the policeman who went to the crime scene and found Dante’ s body inside his room.

On appeal by Migs, the Court of Appeals and subsequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder aggravated by dwelling and disrespect to the victim because of his old age. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender however was appreciated in favor of Migs. So he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua but the award of damages was modified and increased to P350,000 by the SC.

According to the CA and the Supreme Court, the factual findings and assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and probative weight of their testimonies as well as the conclusion based on these factual findings of the trial court must be given the highest respect by the appellate courts whose power and authority to review is limited to the bare and cold records of the case (People vs. Soriano, G.R. 216063, June 5, 2017).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]