People vs. Antonio y Diolata

Self-defense cannot be sustained where unlawful aggression has already ceased at the time of the killing, and treachery qualifies the killing as murder when the victim is stabbed from behind without opportunity to defend. The plea of illness diminishing will-power was rejected for lack of proof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld absent modifying circumstances, and moral damages were increased to P50,000.00 pursuant to current jurisprudence.

At 1:00 in the early morning of October 11, 1998, Jomar Ephan was engaged in a drinking session with Reynaldo Ephan and Roselito Dacillo in front of a store in Barangay Pakna-an, Mandaue City. Accused-appellant Jerry Antonio y Diolata arrived and bought cigarettes, then ordered Jomar, Reynaldo and Roselito to count the cigarettes he bought. When the three told him to let the storekeeper do the counting, accused-appellant left the store, returned minutes later, and suddenly stabbed Jomar at the back before fleeing. The victim was rushed by his companions to the hospital but died the following day from a stab wound near the spinal column, three inches above the waistline, causing grade IV splenic injury, grade II left renal injury, and massive blood loss as found by Dr. Reynaldo Baclig.

According to accused-appellant, he was drinking liquor at the house of his friend Fernando Gelig at Pakna-an and went across the street to buy cigarettes, which he offered to the people in front of the store but nobody accepted. After returning to his friend's house, he went back to the same store to buy pulutan when somebody struck him with a stool on the left eyebrow, causing him to fall and bleed. He claimed the group of the deceased then ganged up on him, and the very drunk deceased attempted to hit him but missed and fell on his belly, at which point accused-appellant seized a kitchen knife he saw under the table and stabbed the deceased at the back in a downward motion before running away.

Thereafter, Barangay Tanod Eduardo Juban, awakened by a neighbor's report of trouble at a nearby store, saw accused-appellant being chased by a crowd shouting "thief" and mauled upon being caught. Juban pacified the mob, brought accused-appellant to the barangay hall, and later learned that accused-appellant had stabbed somebody. The trial court credited the prosecution's positive and direct narration that no altercation preceded the surprise attack and rejected self-defense, finding treachery and imposing reclusion perpetua with civil indemnity and moral damages.

• Unlawful Aggression and Lesser Offense: Petitioner argued that for failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence that the accused was the unlawful aggressor, he should be convicted for a lesser offense as charged.
• Mitigating Illness Diminishing Will-Power: Petitioner maintained that the trial court failed to appreciate the presence of a mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.

• Self-Defense and Unlawful Aggression: Whether accused-appellant, who invoked self-defense and admitted the stabbing, proved unlawful aggression and is entitled to acquittal or conviction for a lesser offense.
• Mitigating Illness: Whether the injury allegedly sustained by accused-appellant constitutes a mitigating circumstance analogous to illness or defect diminishing exercise of will-power.
• Treachery and Penalty: Whether treachery attended the killing to qualify it as murder punishable by reclusion perpetua, and what civil liability is proper.

• Self-Defense and Unlawful Aggression: No. Self-defense was rejected, the accused having become the aggressor by stabbing a fallen, defenseless victim after any aggression had ceased, with no reasonable necessity for the means employed.
• Mitigating Illness: No. The alleged stool injury was not proved to have been inflicted by the victim's group and hardly qualifies as illness diminishing will-power without depriving consciousness.
• Treachery and Penalty: Yes. Treachery qualified the killing as murder for a surprise attack from behind with no risk to the offender, warranting reclusion perpetua absent modifying circumstances, with P50,000.00 civil indemnity and increased P50,000.00 moral damages.

• Self-Defense and Unlawful Aggression: Invocation of self-defense admits authorship and shifts the burden to prove (1) unlawful aggression by the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means to repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation by the accused. Credence was given to prosecution witnesses who positively testified that accused-appellant suddenly stabbed the victim at the back with no preceding altercation, their testimony being untainted by ill-motive and consistent with the natural interest of friends and relatives in punishing the real culprit. Even on accused-appellant's version, the drunk deceased missed and fell to the ground, so unlawful aggression had ceased and stabbing him at the back was no longer self-preservation but a perverse desire to kill, directed at a defenseless person rather than the alleged gang.
• Mitigating Illness: The claimed head injury from being struck by a stool was not shown to have been inflicted by the deceased and his companions, whom accused-appellant could not identify as the assailant. Such injury hardly qualifies as an illness or defect diminishing will-power analogous to a mitigating circumstance, and no proof established diminished volition without loss of consciousness at the time of stabbing.
• Treachery and Penalty: Treachery was properly appreciated because the attack from behind completely caught the victim by surprise and ensured execution without risk from any defense the victim might make. Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is punished by reclusion perpetua to death; with no modifying circumstance established, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. Civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000.00 was affirmed, while moral damages were increased from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.

• Credibility of trial court findings — The trial court's choice of which conflicting version to believe is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect, having observed demeanor and manner of testimony, and will not be disturbed unless facts of substance and value plainly overlooked might affect the result. Applied to uphold the prosecution's account of a sudden, unprovoked stabbing over the defense version.
• Self-defense; burden and elements — One who invokes self-defense admits authorship and must prove (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. Applied to reject the plea for failure to establish continuing unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity.
• Cessation of unlawful aggression — When the initial aggression has ceased because the victim is fallen, drunk, or defenseless, further attack is no longer self-preservation but aggression by the accused. Applied because the deceased had missed and fallen before being stabbed at the back.
• Treachery — Treachery exists where the offender employs means ensuring execution without risk to himself from defense the offended party might make, as in a sudden attack from behind catching the victim by surprise. Applied to qualify the killing as murder under Article 248.
• Credibility of relatives as witnesses — Friends and relatives of the deceased, absent ill-motive, are naturally interested in having the real culprit punished and their positive testimony deserves full faith. Applied to credit Reynaldo Ephan and Roselito Dacillo's narration.
• Penalty for murder and civil liability — Murder under Article 248, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is punished by reclusion perpetua to death; absent modifying circumstances, reclusion perpetua is imposed, with P50,000.00 civil indemnity ex delicto and, per current jurisprudence, P50,000.00 moral damages. Applied to affirm the sentence and increase moral damages.

• "Faced with the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, the trial court’s choice of which version to believe is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, and therefore could better discern if such witnesses were telling the truth." — States the deference rule on credibility that justified upholding the prosecution's version of a sudden stabbing.
• "Where an accused invokes self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime." — States the admission effect that shifts the burden to the accused to prove all elements of self-defense.
• "Accused-appellant’s attack on the deceased from behind completely caught the latter by surprise." — States the factual basis for appreciating treachery, showing execution without risk from defense.
• "The moral damages awarded by the trial court in the amount of P20,000.00 should, however, be increased to P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence." — States the modification of civil liability while affirming the murder conviction and reclusion perpetua.

• People vs. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658, 669 [1996] — Cited as authority for deference to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility based on demeanor on the stand.
• People vs. Javier, 229 SCRA 638, 645 [1994] — Cited to support crediting positive and direct prosecution testimony absent ill-motive to falsely testify.
• People vs. Galas, 262 SCRA 381, 391 [1996] — Cited for the rule that relatives and friends of the deceased are naturally interested in punishing the real culprit.
• People vs. Obzunar, 265 SCRA 547, 566 [1996] — Cited for the elements of self-defense and the shifted burden of proof upon invocation thereof.
• People vs. Tampon, 258 SCRA 115, 124-125 [1996] — Cited to reject self-defense where unlawful aggression had ceased and the accused became the aggressor.
• People vs. Aliviado, 247 SCRA 300, 310 [1995] — Cited as basis for appreciating treachery in a surprise attack without risk to the offender.
• People vs. Ronquillo, G.R. No. 126136, April 5, 2002 — Cited as current jurisprudence justifying increase of moral damages to P50,000.00.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes murder with reclusion perpetua to death where treachery, evident premeditation, or other qualifying circumstances attend; applied to qualify the surprise back-stabbing as murder and, with no modifying circumstance, to impose reclusion perpetua.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Kapunan, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur. No separate concurring reasoning was set forth.