People of the Philippines vs. Efren Rivero

An accused who admits killing but invokes self-defense bears the burden of proving unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation; failure to prove these requisites, together with a sudden, unexpected attack from behind, sustains a murder conviction qualified by treachery.

Efren Rivero was married to Myrna Gutierrez, a daughter of Leon Gutierrez, making Leon his father-in-law. The charge arose from a fatal hacking incident in Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, and was prosecuted as murder under the Revised Penal Code. The case required the Court to assess a claim of self-defense interposed by an accused who admitted the killing.

Efren Rivero was the son-in-law of Leon Gutierrez, having married Leon’s daughter Myrna Gutierrez. On March 18, 1982, at about 11:30 a.m., in Barangay San Ramon, Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, Leon was walking along a path with Demetrio San Juan ahead of him. Efren, from behind Leon, attacked him with a bolo. The first blow hit Leon’s right shoulder; when Leon turned to face his assailant, he received numerous hack wounds, thirteen incised wounds in all, as detailed in the autopsy report of Dr. Galan. Leon fell dead at the site. Demetrio moved back, fled for fear of being attacked, and immediately reported the matter to Eufemia Gutierrez, Leon’s wife. Eufemia went to the place and found Leon dead on the path, about thirty meters from Efren’s house; with relatives and friends, she brought the body home. The next day, Dr. Galan autopsied the body. The first bolo wound on the right shoulder immediately disabled Leon and prevented him from offering any resistance.

Rivero claimed self-defense. According to him, at about 8:00 a.m. on March 18, 1982, he went to the house of the barangay captain of Lojo, Lagonoy, to settle his case with his wife Myrna, whom he had caught in flagrante with her paramour Danilo Delfino in their conjugal home. Myrna did not come, but Leon did. Rivero told Leon that he would no longer live with his daughter because she committed adultery. Leon reacted by warning him to be careful because he would kill him before the end of the day. Frightened, Rivero returned home, arriving at about 9:00 a.m. At about 11:00 a.m., while he was inside his house, Leon, armed with a bolo, challenged him to get out because he was going to kill him. Leon then forced open the door and entered the house. Due to fear, Rivero also got a bolo and told Leon not to come nearer, but Leon cornered him against the wall and hacked him. Leon did not hit him. Rivero then hacked Leon on the right shoulder, immediately disabling him. He could not recall how many more times he hacked the victim because he had lost control of his mental faculties. He thereafter surrendered to the police authorities.

The trial court accepted the prosecution’s version and discredited Rivero’s self-defense. It found it preposterous because nothing would have been easier than to show the police, at the time he surrendered, the bloodstains that would have been visible inside his house if the wounding had occurred there. Demetrio San Juan testified that the attack occurred at the pathway, and the deceased was found near the pathway, thirty meters away from Efren’s house. Dr. Wilfredo Galan declared that the victim’s wound at the back may have been inflicted without his being forewarned of the attack; the victim was already out of his senses. This wound at the back strengthened Demetrio’s testimony that the victim was hacked from behind with a sharp bladed long bolo called “ginogon” by Rivero, who was following the victim while the latter was walking. The victim sustained thirteen hack wounds while Rivero suffered no harm or injury despite the fact that the victim was bigger than him.

• Self-Defense: Accused-appellant Efren Rivero maintained that he acted in complete self-defense, the victim having unlawfully attacked him by coming to his house with a bolo, challenging him to a fight, and forcing himself inside.
• Reasonable Means: He argued that his use of a bolo against a bolo-wielding aggressor was a reasonable means to repel the aggression.
• Lack of Provocation: He insisted that there was absolutely no provocation on his part because he was attacked inside his house and the killing took place therein.
• Assignment of Errors: He challenged the trial court’s finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, its failure to appreciate his self-defense claim, and its full credence to the testimony of the lone prosecution eyewitness.

• Self-Defense: Whether accused-appellant acted in complete self-defense, thereby incurring no criminal liability for the killing.
• Treachery: Whether treachery qualified the killing to murder.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Whether voluntary surrender and sufficient threat on the part of the victim should be appreciated in accused-appellant’s favor.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be modified under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Self-Defense: No. The accused failed to prove the essential requisites; evidence showed the victim was attacked from behind on the pathway and was unarmed.
• Treachery: Yes. The attack from behind, sudden, unexpected, and without warning constituted treachery under Article 14(16), qualifying the killing to murder under Article 248.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Yes. Voluntary surrender and sufficient threat were appreciated, but one was offset by the alternative circumstance of relationship, leaving one mitigating circumstance.
• Penalty: Modified. The penalty was reduced to indeterminate imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prison mayor maximum as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum.

• Self-Defense: The accused admitted killing Leon Gutierrez, so the burden of evidence shifted to him to prove that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability. He had to rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence, and to establish (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on his part. His version—that Leon attacked him inside his house—was not credible. The victim was found dead about thirty meters from Rivero’s house, at the pathway identified by prosecution witness Demetrio San Juan as the place of attack. No credible evidence showed the victim ran from the house; with thirteen wounds, it was physically impossible for him to have done so. Rivero presented no evidence of bloodstains in his house, although he could have pointed them out to the police immediately after surrendering, and the victim’s alleged bolo was never recovered. Dr. Galan testified that the wound at the back may have been inflicted without the victim being forewarned and that the victim was already out of his senses. The victim sustained thirteen hack wounds while Rivero suffered no harm or injury despite the victim being bigger. These facts established that the victim was unarmed and was not killed inside Rivero’s house; self-defense therefore failed.
• Treachery: The evidence showed the victim was attacked from behind, suddenly, unexpectedly, and without warning. This constituted treachery under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code because Rivero employed means, method, or form in the execution of the crime which tended directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from any defense the victim might make. Although treachery and evident premeditation were both alleged, only treachery was established; it was sufficient to qualify the killing to murder under Article 248.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Voluntary surrender was duly established because Rivero surrendered to the police authorities at the Lagonoy Police Station immediately after the incident. Sufficient threat was also appreciated: at the barangay captain’s house at 8:00 a.m. on the day of the killing, after Rivero told the victim he could no longer live with his adulterous wife, the victim warned him to be careful because he would kill him before the end of the day. Rivero could have interpreted this as a serious threat that prompted him to act. However, one of the two mitigating circumstances was offset by the alternative circumstance of relationship, leaving one mitigating circumstance to authorize the imposition of the minimum period of the prescribed penalty.
• Penalty: Under Article 248, murder is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, a penalty composed of a divisible penalty and two indivisible penalties, each forming a period under Article 77. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, Article 64 called for the imposition of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Because Rivero was entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum had to be within the penalty next degree lower to that prescribed for the offense proved and the maximum within that prescribed. The next lower penalty was prison mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period. The proper indeterminate penalty was therefore ten (10) years and one (1) day of prison mayor maximum as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum.

• Self-Defense — Burden and Requisites — When an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove that the killing was justified and that no criminal liability was incurred. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence, and must establish (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. In this case, Rivero failed to prove these requisites because the evidence showed the victim was attacked from behind on the pathway and was not killed inside Rivero’s house.
• Numerous Wounds Negate Self-Defense — The presence of a large number of wounds on the victim negates self-defense and instead indicates a determined effort to kill the victim. Rivero inflicted thirteen hack wounds on Leon Gutierrez while suffering no harm or injury despite the victim being bigger, which supported the rejection of self-defense.
• Treachery — Under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code, treachery is present when the offender employs means, method, or form in the execution of the crime which tends directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the victim might make. The attack from behind, sudden, unexpected, and without warning constituted treachery and qualified the killing to murder under Article 248.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Alternative Circumstance of Relationship — Voluntary surrender and sufficient threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceding the act are mitigating circumstances under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. Relationship is an alternative circumstance under Article 15. In this case, voluntary surrender and sufficient threat were appreciated, but one of them was offset by the alternative circumstance of relationship, leaving one mitigating circumstance to authorize the minimum period of the prescribed penalty.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Where the accused is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty must be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense proved, and the maximum must be within that prescribed, taking into account the modifying circumstances. The Court applied this rule to reduce Rivero’s penalty from reclusion perpetua to an indeterminate sentence.

• "It is hornbook doctrine that when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the appellant to show that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing." — This states the burden and evidentiary rule for self-defense.
• "It is an oft-repeated rule that the presence of a large number of wounds on the part of the victim negates self-defense; instead, it indicates a determined effort to kill the victim." — This is the rule used to reject Rivero’s self-defense claim.
• "There was, therefore, treachery in the commission of the crime because the accused-appellant employed means, method, or form in its execution which tended directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might make." — This is the ratio for the treachery finding.
• "Nonetheless, any of the two mitigating circumstances was offset by the alternative circumstance of relationship. The remaining mitigating circumstance would then authorize the imposition of the minimum period of the prescribed penalty." — This explains the treatment of mitigating circumstances and penalty.

• People vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 109146, 17 August 1994 — Cited for the doctrine that when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove justification and the essential requisites.
• People vs. Maceda, 197 SCRA 499 [1991] — Cited for the rule that a large number of wounds on the victim negates self-defense and indicates a determined effort to kill.
• People vs. Sagadsad, 215 SCRA 641 [1992] — Cited for the same rule that numerous wounds negate self-defense.
• People vs. Boniao, 217 SCRA 653 [1993] — Cited in relation to treachery under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder; the penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Treachery qualifies the killing to murder. Applied: Rivero was convicted of murder, and the penalty was modified.
• Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery as the employment of means, method, or form in the execution of the crime which tends directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the victim might make. Applied: the attack from behind, sudden, unexpected, and without warning constituted treachery.
• Article 13(7), Revised Penal Code — Voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. Applied: Rivero surrendered immediately to the police authorities.
• Article 13(4), Revised Penal Code — Sufficient threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceding the act as a mitigating circumstance. Applied: the victim warned Rivero that he would kill him before the end of the day.
• Article 15, Revised Penal Code — Alternative circumstances, including relationship. Applied: relationship offset one mitigating circumstance.
• Article 64, Revised Penal Code — Rules for the application of penalties with mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Applied: one mitigating circumstance authorized the minimum period of the prescribed penalty.
• Article 77, Revised Penal Code — Penalties composed of three periods. Applied: the penalty for murder comprises a divisible penalty and two indivisible penalties, each forming a period.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate penalty.

Padilla, Bellosillo, Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.