People vs. Callet

Treachery qualifies a killing to murder when the victim is attacked suddenly from behind while sitting and watching a game, rendering him unable to defend himself.

On September 15, 1996, at around 5:00 p.m., Alfredo Senador, his 12-year-old son Lecpoy, and Eduardo Perater were at the flea market in Barangay Tambulan, Tayasan, Negros Oriental, watching a game of cara y cruz. Alfredo was sitting close to the ground with his buttocks resting on his right foot. Elbert Callet appeared from behind Alfredo and stabbed him on the left shoulder near the base of the neck with a 9-inch hunting knife. Alfredo stood up, walked a few meters, fell, and died shortly thereafter. Manuel Gabonales, another prosecution witness, saw Alfredo soaked in blood and helped carry him to a mango tree, where Alfredo identified Callet as his assailant before dying. Callet ran toward the basketball court and eventually surrendered to barangay tanods three kilometers away, turning over his weapon at the municipal hall.

• The Incident: On September 15, 1996, at 5:00 p.m., Alfredo Senador was watching a cara y cruz game at a flea market, sitting with his buttocks on his right foot. Elbert Callet appeared from behind and stabbed Alfredo in the left shoulder with a 9-inch hunting knife. Alfredo walked a few meters, fell, and died shortly after.
• Prosecution Evidence: Eyewitnesses Lecpoy Senador and Eduardo Perater positively identified Callet as the assailant, testifying that there was no prior argument and the attack was sudden. Manuel Gabonales corroborated seeing the victim soaked in blood and the accused running away. Dr. Rogelio Kho's autopsy confirmed the cause of death as severe hemorrhage and irreversible shock due to an 11-cm deep stab wound directed downward and slightly to the right.
• Defense Evidence: Callet claimed that while watching volleyball, the victim's elbow hit him. A verbal exchange followed, and the victim grabbed and twisted Callet's left arm. As the victim attempted to draw his own knife, which got entangled with his shirt, Callet used his left hand to pull out his knife from his right waist and stabbed the victim. He then ran toward the municipal hall to surrender.
• Surrender and Apprehension: Barangay tanods caught up with Callet three kilometers away. He admitted to the stabbing, kept his knife for fear of retaliation, but surrendered it upon reaching the municipal hall.

• Treachery: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in finding that the killing was attended by treachery.
• Self-Defense: Accused-appellant maintained that the trial court gravely erred in finding that he failed to prove the elements of self-defense.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Lack of Intent: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in failing to consider the mitigating circumstance that he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Accused-appellant challenged the credibility of the prosecution eyewitnesses, pointing out that their joint affidavit stated the victim was "standing" when stabbed, contradicting their trial testimony that he was "sitting."

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: Respondent countered that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were clear, consistent, and replete with details, and that relationship to the victim does not inherently impair credibility.
• Discrepancy in Affidavit: Respondent argued that discrepancies between affidavits and testimonies do not necessarily discredit witnesses, as affidavits are often incomplete and inaccurate; moreover, the word "standing" in the joint affidavit was superimposed without the witnesses' countersignature.
• Improbability of Self-Defense: Respondent maintained that the accused's version of the encounter was physically improbable and uncorroborated, given the public setting and the mechanics of the alleged stabbing.

• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing of the victim.
• Self-Defense: Whether the accused successfully proved the elements of self-defense.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the inconsistency between the eyewitnesses' affidavit and testimony destroys their credibility.
• Mitigating Circumstance (Lack of Intent): Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

• Treachery: Treachery was correctly appreciated because the victim was sitting close to the ground with his attention focused on a game when the accused suddenly stabbed him from behind, ensuring the execution of the act without risk to the accused.
• Self-Defense: Self-defense was not established. The accused's version was physically improbable—specifically, that he could pull out a knife from his right waist using his left hand while his left hand was allegedly restrained by the victim, and inflict an 11-cm deep downward wound on the victim's shoulder. Furthermore, the claim was uncorroborated despite the incident occurring in a public place.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The inconsistency between the affidavit and testimony did not exculpate the accused. Discrepancies between affidavits and open court testimonies do not necessarily discredit witnesses, as affidavits are often incomplete and inaccurate due to their ex parte nature. Moreover, the word "standing" in the affidavit was superimposed using correction fluid without the witnesses' countersignature, thus they could not be bound by it.
• Mitigating Circumstance (Lack of Intent): The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was correctly denied. The use of a 9-inch hunting knife, the attack from behind, and the 11-cm deep wound demonstrated a clear intent to kill.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against the person that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. Applied to uphold the murder conviction where the victim was suddenly stabbed from behind while sitting and distracted.
• Inconsistency between Affidavit and Testimony — Discrepancies between sworn statements or affidavits and testimonies made at the witness stand do not necessarily discredit witnesses, it being a matter of judicial experience that affidavits taken ex parte are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate. Applied to disregard the discrepancy regarding the victim's posture (sitting vs. standing).
• Self-Defense (Burden of Proof) — When invoking self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, who must prove the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation by clear and convincing evidence. Applied to reject the defense due to physical improbability and lack of corroboration.
• Lack of Intent to Commit So Grave a Wrong (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) — This internal state is weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted, and the manner it is inflicted. Not appreciated because the use of a 9-inch hunting knife and the nature of the wound indicated intent to kill.

• "Discrepancies between sworn statements or affidavits and testimonies made at the witness stand do no necessarily discredit the witnesses. This is because it is a matter of judicial experience that an affidavit being taken ex parte is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate."
• "The lack of 'intent' to commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted."

• People v. Realin, 301 SCRA 495 (1999) — Followed regarding the rule that blood relationship between a witness and the victim does not by itself impair credibility; rather, it may strengthen it.
• People v. Ferrer, 255 SCRA 19 — Followed regarding discrepancies between affidavits and testimonies not necessarily discrediting witnesses.
• People v. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 — Followed regarding the judicial experience that affidavits are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate.
• People v. Panabang, G.R. No. 137514-15, January 16, 2002 — Followed for the elements of evident premeditation, which were found unproven in this case.
• People v. Pajenado, 69 SCRA 172 (1976) — Followed for the rule on determining the lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong based on the weapon used, the injury inflicted, and the manner of infliction.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Murder. Applied as the governing law for the killing qualified by treachery.
• Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides the justifying circumstance of self-defense and its elements. Applied to evaluate and reject the accused's claim.
• Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery (alevosia). Applied to qualify the killing to murder.
• Article 13(3), Revised Penal Code — Provides the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. Applied and denied based on the circumstances of the attack.
• Article 41, Revised Penal Code — Provides the accessory penalties of reclusion perpetua. Applied in imposing the penalty.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, Ynares-Santiago, and Austria-Martinez, JJ.