People vs. Arizala

Self-defense cannot be appreciated where unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is not proven, and the aggravating circumstance of "insult or disregard of respect due the offended party on account of his rank" requires proof that the accused deliberately intended to insult the victim's rank, not merely knowledge of that rank.

Carlito Arizala rented a room in the house of Manolito de Guzman in Barangay Salvacion, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. The victim, SPO4 Rolando Cara, was the deputy chief of police of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. On February 14, 1997, Arizala, together with Reynaldo Barut and Marco Barut, had been working at the local cemetery demolishing a tomb for reburial and had consumed liquor during the work. The killing occurred on a public street near the residences of the parties.

On February 14, 1997, at around 5:00 p.m., SPO4 Rolando Cara encountered Manolito de Guzman on a street in Barangay Salvacion, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, and asked to go to the latter's house to talk. As they were entering, Cara noticed some women on the road and paused to converse with them. Manolito, unable to wait, went out to call Cara back. At that point, Reynaldo Barut, Marco Barut, and Carlito Arizala were approaching, having just come from the cemetery where they had been contracted to demolish a tomb. Arizala, who appeared drunk, proceeded directly to the room he rented from Manolito. Cara called Reynaldo Barut, a former Bantay Bayan chief, to join them, as he wanted to talk to both Reynaldo and Manolito.

Manolito walked ahead of Cara and Reynaldo. When Manolito was about to enter the gate of his house, he turned to call Cara, who was about three meters behind. Just then, Arizala suddenly rushed out of his door, about 2.5 meters from where Cara stood, shouting "Vulva of your mother you policemen, I hate all of you," and simultaneously pushed and stabbed Cara in the back with a knife approximately ten inches long. Cara fell prone to the ground. Manolito was taken aback; when Arizala made a motion to thrust at him, he fled. He saw Arizala stab Cara three times before running to safety. Manolito reported the incident to Sgt. Mario Lopez, who proceeded to the crime scene. Upon returning, Manolito saw Cara already loaded in a police vehicle, while Arizala lay prone on the ground about 18 meters from the attack site.

Dr. Nestor Domingo, Municipal Health Officer of Bayombong, conducted the autopsy and found that Cara sustained fourteen stab wounds, nine of which were fatal — seven at the back and two on the left lateral side of the body. Dr. Domingo testified that a single-bladed weapon was used. Arizala, for his part, admitted inflicting the injuries but claimed self-defense. He testified that after returning home from the cemetery job, Cara shouted at him and ordered him out of his house, accused him of involvement in illegal logging, and threatened to shoot him while motioning to draw something from his waist. Alarmed, Arizala said he embraced Cara and struggled with him, unconsciously carrying the knife he had been using to slice meat. He claimed somebody hit his head during the struggle and he unconsciously thrust the knife at Cara in reaction. He thereafter waited for the police, who handcuffed him and brought him to the hospital for treatment of a head wound.

The trial court disbelieved Arizala's account, finding that the sudden and overpowering attack left Cara no opportunity to retaliate. It noted that the small scar on Arizala's head was more probably inflicted by responding policemen during arrest, not by Cara. The trial court convicted Arizala of murder, appreciating treachery and the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the victim's rank as a police officer, and imposed the death penalty.

• Self-Defense: Arizala maintained that the victim's act of attempting to draw his gun from his waist posed an imminent danger to his life, constituting unlawful aggression that justified his defensive reaction. He argued there was reasonable necessity in his response, as he acted as an ordinary prudent person would under the circumstances.
• Lack of Treachery: Arizala argued that even assuming self-defense failed, the stabbing without opportunity for the victim to defend himself did not justify a finding of alevosia, as there was no evidence he consciously and deliberately adopted such mode of assault to ensure execution without risk to himself. He contended that the location of fatal wounds at the back does not by itself compel a finding of treachery, and that the qualifying circumstance must be proven as indubitably as the crime itself.
• Doubt on Eyewitness Credibility: Arizala imputed doubt as to whether Manolito de Guzman actually witnessed the commencement of the attack, asserting that De Guzman's attention may have been elsewhere before the actual attack, and that an eyewitness who saw the incident already in progress cannot testify as to how it began.

• Rejection of Self-Defense: The Solicitor General countered that two eyewitnesses, Manolito de Guzman and Reynaldo Barut, whose testimonies were not impeached on grounds of improper motive, testified that the stabbing was not preceded by any argument or conversation between Arizala and Cara, directly controverting Arizala's version.
• Unlawful Aggression Not Proven: The prosecution argued that even giving credence to Arizala's account, the victim's alleged threatening stance did not constitute unlawful aggression, as the victim was not proven to be armed — no firearm or holster was found, and the eyewitness testified the victim had none.
• Physical Evidence Belies Self-Defense: The prosecution pointed to the nature, number, and location of the wounds — fourteen stab wounds, nine fatal, seven at the back — as physical evidence strongly militating against the claim of self-defense, indicating a determined effort to kill.

• Self-Defense: Whether the justifying circumstance of self-defense was established in favor of accused-appellant.
• Treachery: Whether the killing was perpetrated with treachery, thus qualifying it to murder.
• Aggravating Circumstance: Whether the generic aggravating circumstance of "insult or disregard of respect due the offended party on account of his rank" was properly appreciated to warrant the death penalty.

• Self-Defense: No. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was not proven, as the victim was unarmed and the attack was unprovoked and sudden, failing the sine qua non element of self-defense.
• Treachery: Yes. The sudden and unexpected attack from behind on an unsuspecting and unarmed victim, without the slightest provocation, constituted alevosia qualifying the killing to murder.
• Aggravating Circumstance: No. Mere knowledge of the victim's rank as a police officer and a spontaneous utterance of hatred against policemen do not prove that the accused deliberately intended to insult or disregard the respect due the victim on account of his rank.

• Self-Defense: By pleading self-defense, Arizala admitted authorship of the killing, shifting the burden of proof to him. He was required to establish all three elements: unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation on his part. Unlawful aggression is the sine qua non; without it, no self-defense can exist, complete or incomplete. The Court found no unlawful aggression: two prosecution eyewitnesses testified that the stabbing was not preceded by any argument or conversation, and the victim was not armed — Manolito de Guzman positively testified that though Cara was in uniform, he had no firearm or holster, and none was recovered at the scene. Even accepting Arizala's version that Cara motioned to draw something from his waist, a threatening or intimidating attitude does not constitute unlawful aggression, which requires an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening stance. The number and location of the wounds — fourteen stab wounds, nine fatal, seven at the back — further belied the reasonableness of the means employed, indicating a determined effort to kill rather than a defensive reaction. The trial court also disbelieved that the small scar on Arizala's head was inflicted by Cara, finding it more probable it was sustained while resisting arrest.

• Treachery: The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation. An unexpected and sudden attack rendering the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself constitutes alevosia, even if the assailant and victim were face to face. Here, the attack was made from behind, and the victim was given no opportunity to resist or escape. The statement "I hate all policemen" uttered immediately before the attack did not constitute sufficient warning to enable defense, as the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. The prosecution eyewitness Manolito de Guzman testified to the commencement of the attack, seeing Arizala suddenly rush out and thrust a bladed weapon into Cara's back, rebutting Arizala's contention that the witness did not see how the attack began.

• Aggravating Circumstance: For the aggravating circumstance of "insult or disregard of respect due the offended party on account of his rank" to aggravate a penalty, there must be proof that the accused deliberately intended to act with insult or disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his rank. Knowledge of the victim's rank and a spontaneous utterance of hatred against policemen in general do not suffice to prove such deliberate intent. No prior facts were established showing why Arizala would harbor a grave grudge against the victim simply because he was a police officer. A spontaneous utterance of anger or hate is not necessarily an expression of insult or disregard owing to a victim's rank. Aggravating circumstances must be proved as conclusively as the act itself, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, especially where the possible punishment is death, the execution of which is irrevocable. With neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

• Burden Shift in Self-Defense — When an accused pleads self-defense, he admits authorship of the crime, and the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the accused, who must justify the taking of the victim's life by the standards of the law. The accused must prove the essential elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. All three must concur, but self-defense rests on proof of unlawful aggression, which is the condition sine qua non.

• Unlawful Aggression — Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The accused must present proof of a positively strong act of real aggression. A mere threatening stance or posture does not suffice.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — An unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation. Even if the victim is face to face with the assailant, treachery may be appreciated if the attack is so sudden and unexpected that the victim cannot offer effective defense. Even a warning does not negate treachery if the execution of the attack makes defense or retaliation impossible.

• Aggravating Circumstance of Disregard of Rank — For the aggravating circumstance of "insult or disregard of respect due the offended party on account of his rank" to be appreciated, there must be proof that the accused deliberately intended to act with insult or in disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his rank. Mere knowledge of the rank or office of the victim, or a spontaneous utterance of hatred, is insufficient. Aggravating circumstances must be proved as conclusively as the crime itself; mere suppositions or presumptions are insufficient.

• "It is axiomatic that where an accused pleads self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime, as in this case. Consequently, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused which lies upon the prosecution is shifted to the accused who must prove the elements of his defense." — This passage states the foundational rule on the burden shift when self-defense is invoked, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on justifying circumstances.

• "Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression." — This defines the canonical formulation of unlawful aggression as the sine qua non of self-defense.

• "The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the latter." — This is the standard formulation of treachery applied in murder cases, articulating the controlling test for appreciating alevosia.

• "For the generic aggravating circumstance of 'with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank' to aggravate a penalty in the commission of a crime there must be proof which would clearly demonstrate that the accused deliberately intended to act with insult or in disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his rank, which is the essence of said aggravating circumstance." — This passage sets the standard for proving the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank, requiring deliberate intent rather than mere knowledge.

• People vs. Noay, G.R. No. 122102, September 25, 1998 — Cited for the proposition that self-defense is inherently a weak defense which can easily be concocted, and for the burden-shift rule when self-defense is pleaded.
• People vs. Apongan, 270 SCRA 713 — Cited for the definition of unlawful aggression as requiring an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.
• People vs. Iligan, G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999 — Cited for the rule that an unexpected and sudden attack rendering the victim unable to defend himself constitutes alevosia, and that treachery may be appreciated even when the victim is face to face with the assailant.
• People vs. Verchez, 233 SCRA 174 — Cited for the requirement that the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank must be proven with deliberate intent to insult the victim's rank.
• People vs. Derilo, 271 SCRA 633 — Cited for the principle that aggravating circumstances must be proved as conclusively as the act itself, mere suppositions or presumptions being insufficient.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines and penalizes the crime of murder. The Court affirmed the conviction under this article, appreciating treachery as the qualifying circumstance. With neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the penalty was set at reclusion perpetua.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concurred. Bellosillo, Kapunan, Quisumbing, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., were abroad on official business.