Paddayuman vs. People

A plea of self-defense must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Where the accused admits to stabbing the victim but claims self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove the requisites of self-defense; failure to do so results in conviction.

Florentino Paddayuman was charged with frustrated murder for stabbing Maximo Quilang. The accused and the victim were related through marriage, with the victim being the nephew of the accused's cousin, Casimiro Paddayuman. The incident occurred during the preparation of a wedding in Barangay Capatan, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. The accused interposed the justifying circumstance of self-defense, claiming that the victim had set fire to his granary and had attempted to attack him with a weapon.

On the eve of March 15, 1991, Maximo Quilang went to the house of his uncle, Casimiro Paddayuman, in Barangay Capatan, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, to help prepare for the wedding of Casimiro's son the next day. Maximo then had a drinking spree with Casimiro, Apolinario Dassil, and accused Florentino Paddayuman. While drinking, Maximo admonished the accused not to drink too much. Apparently annoyed, the accused left the drinking session.

At around 12:00 o'clock midnight of the same day, Maximo also left and went to his house about 100 meters away. While on his way home, the accused stabbed Maximo at the left side of his body. When the victim asked, "Why did you stab me?", the accused replied, "I will really kill you." The accused then stabbed Maximo again at his breast and left, believing his victim was dying. Feeling weak, Maximo shouted for help. Apolinario Dassil, Maximo's nephew, heard the cry and rushed to the scene, finding his uncle bathed in his own blood. Apolinario brought Maximo to the Cagayan Valley Regional Hospital in Tuguegarao.

Dr. Cirilo Pintucan, resident physician of Cagayan Valley Hospital, examined and treated Maximo on March 16, 1991. He found two stab wounds on the victim's chest: one on the fourth intracostal stage or on the bone at the middle of the chest, just parallel to the nipple line; and the other on the lateral portion of the left chest below the nipple line. The Medico-Legal Certificate disclosed the findings as "WOUND, STABBED, MULTIPLE, PENETRATING" with a diagnosis of "PNEUMOHEMOTHORAX," and stated that the victim "would need medical attendance for more than nine (9) not more than 1 month barring complications." Maximo was confined in the Cagayan Valley Regional Hospital for seven (7) days and in the Lung Center of the Philippines for two (2) days.

The accused never denied having stabbed the victim twice but interposed self-defense. He testified that he went to the house of Casimiro Paddayuman, his cousin, at 7:00 in the morning of March 15, 1991 to assist in the wedding preparation. At around 6:00 in the evening, he went home, about 35 meters away from Casimiro's house. At about midnight, while resting, he was stunned by the incessant barking of dogs. As he looked out the window, he saw Maximo Quilang setting his granary on fire. He hurriedly went out and approached Maximo, asking why he was burning the granary. The latter retorted, "We intend to burn all of you here." Then, holding a lighter, Maximo proceeded to the accused's house. The accused tried to stop him, but Maximo reached for something from the back pockets of his pants. Thinking it was a deadly weapon, the accused stabbed Maximo at the left side of his body. Although wounded, Maximo drew a knife and tried to hit the accused. The latter retaliated and stabbed Maximo again on the chest. Maximo then left and proceeded towards north.

To corroborate the accused's claim that his granary was burned that night, the defense offered the testimonies of Casimiro Paddayuman and Romeo Macanang. Both testified that they saw the granary burning but did not see who caused it. Meanwhile, on June 13, 1991, a criminal complaint for "destructive arson" was filed by the accused against Maximo Quilang and Apolinario Dassil with the Municipal Trial Court of Tuguegarao. The complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice.

After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting the accused of attempted homicide only, there being no evidence showing that the stab wounds inflicted on Maximo could cause death had it not been for timely medical attendance. The trial court also held that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision.

• Misapprehension of Facts: Petitioner argued that on the basis of the findings of fact in the decision itself and of the trial court, he cannot be convicted of attempted homicide.
• Misapprehension of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the rulings of the Court of Appeals on important issues are based on the misapprehension of evidence, or are contrary to law and jurisprudence, and that he should be entitled to acquittal.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondent's arguments in a separate section.

• Self-Defense: Whether the petitioner validly established the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
• Crime Committed: Whether the crime committed was attempted homicide or a more serious offense, given the nature of the wounds inflicted and the alleged qualifying circumstances.

• Self-Defense: No. The petitioner failed to establish self-defense by clear and convincing evidence, as he failed to prove the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, which is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance.
• Crime Committed: Attempted homicide. The prosecution failed to prove that the wounds were fatal enough to cause death, and the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery were not established.

• Self-Defense: The Court held that by claiming self-defense, the petitioner assumes the onus to establish his plea with certainty by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction will follow from his admission that he killed the victim. The requisites of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (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. The element of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. The petitioner's story was properly rejected by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals because, aside from being incredible, he failed to establish by strong and convincing evidence that a fire broke out in his granary that night. The trial court observed that the petitioner never reported the alleged burning to the Barangay Captain or police authorities; he filed the destructive arson complaint only 90 days after the alleged incident, which betrayed its purpose as a counter-charge to be used as a bargaining chip; he did not execute any sworn statement regarding the alleged burning; and he did not give a counter-affidavit during preliminary investigation. Moreover, even assuming there was a fire, the petitioner failed to prove that Maximo set it, as the defense witnesses did not testify that Maximo was the culprit. The trial court correctly appreciated the story of the victim as credible and plausible. The Court also noted that findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great respect and even finality because of its opportunity to personally examine and observe the witnesses while testifying, unless the trial court has disregarded or overlooked some facts and circumstances of weight and substance.

• Crime Committed: The Court agreed with the trial court that attempted homicide was committed. Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Here, the petitioner stabbed the victim twice on the chest, which is indicative of an intent to kill. Believing that Maximo was dying, the petitioner left. However, there is no evidence that the wounds sustained by the victim were fatal enough as to cause death. Dr. Pintucan did not categorically state whether or not the wounds were fatal. Circumstances which qualify criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjectures, no matter how reasonable or probable, but must be based on facts of unquestionable existence. The uncertainty on the nature of the wounds warrants the appreciation of a lesser gravity of the crime committed, as this is in accordance with the fundamental principle in Criminal Law that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused. Citing People vs. Pilones, the Court held that even if the victim was wounded but the injury was not fatal and could not cause his death, the crime would only be attempted. Furthermore, the crime is attempted homicide because the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, as alleged in the Information, were not proven by the prosecution.

• Self-Defense — The requisites of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (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. The element of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the petitioner's claim of self-defense failed because he did not prove unlawful aggression, as his story was incredible and uncorroborated.

• Burden of Proof in Self-Defense — By claiming self-defense, the accused assumes the onus to establish his plea with certainty by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction will follow from his admission that he killed the victim. Where self-defense is not corroborated by independent and competent evidence, and is extremely doubtful, it cannot prosper. The Court applied this doctrine by noting that the petitioner's claim was rejected because he failed to establish by strong and convincing evidence that a fire broke out in his granary and that the victim set it.

• Attempted Felony — Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the petitioner's act of stabbing the victim twice on the chest was indicative of intent to kill, but since the wounds were not proven to be fatal, the crime was only attempted homicide.

• Credibility of Trial Court Findings — The findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great respect and even finality because of its opportunity to personally examine and observe the witnesses while testifying, unless the trial court has disregarded or overlooked some facts and circumstances of weight and substance which, if considered, might alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case. The Court applied this doctrine by affirming the trial court's appreciation of the victim's testimony as credible and plausible.

• "By claiming self-defense, petitioner assumes the onus to establish his plea with certainty by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction will follow from his admission that he killed the victim." — This passage states the burden of proof placed on an accused who interposes the justifying circumstance of self-defense, which is central to the Court's ruling.

• "The element of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself." — This passage defines the indispensable element of unlawful aggression in self-defense, which the petitioner failed to establish.

• "Circumstances which qualify criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjectures, no matter how reasonable or probable, but must be based on facts of unquestionable existence." — This passage articulates the standard for proving qualifying circumstances, which the prosecution failed to meet in this case.

• "In the instant case, the uncertainty on the nature of the wounds warrants the appreciation of a lesser gravity of the crime committed as this is in accordance with the fundamental principle in Criminal Law that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused." — This passage explains the Court's reasoning for affirming the conviction for attempted homicide rather than a more serious offense.

• People vs. Pilones, 84 SCRA 167 (1978) — Cited as controlling precedent for the proposition that even if the victim was wounded but the injury was not fatal and could not cause his death, the crime would only be attempted.

• People vs. Real, 308 SCRA 244 (1999) — Cited for the doctrine that by claiming self-defense, the accused assumes the onus to establish his plea with certainty by credible, clear and convincing evidence.

• People vs. Sanchez, 308 SCRA 264 (1999) — Cited for the same doctrine on the burden of proof in self-defense.

• People vs. Janairo, 311 SCRA 58 (1999) — Cited for the doctrine that where self-defense is not corroborated by independent and competent evidence, and is extremely doubtful, it cannot prosper.

• People vs. Patalinghug, 318 SCRA 116 (1999) — Cited for the requisites of self-defense.

• Galang vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 139 (2000) — Cited for the requisites of self-defense and the principle that unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non.

• People vs. Banela, 301 SCRA 84 (1999); People vs. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66 (1999); People vs. Realin, 301 SCRA 495 (1999) — Cited for the doctrine that findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great respect and even finality.

• People vs. Lopez, 313 SCRA 114 (1999) — Cited for the doctrine that circumstances which qualify criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjectures.

• People vs. Bautista, 308 SCRA 620 (1999) — Cited for the fundamental principle in Criminal Law that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused.

• Article 6, Revised Penal Code — Defines when a felony is attempted, which the Court applied to determine that the crime committed was attempted homicide because the petitioner did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony.

• Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — The procedural basis for the petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner.

Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Carpio, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the case text.