People vs. Raytos

A plea of self-defense admits the killing and requires the accused to prove unlawful aggression, reasonable means, and lack of sufficient provocation; absent unlawful aggression, self-defense fails, and the mere drawing of a knife is not unlawful aggression. Treachery qualifies the killing when the accused suddenly stabs the victim from behind without warning and without giving the victim a chance to defend himself.

Lorenzo Raytos and David Araza lived in neighboring barangays in Villareal, Samar, and Raytos had known Araza since birth. The charge was Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. Raytos entered a plea of not guilty and invoked self-defense, making the justification for the killing the central factual and legal dispute on appeal.

On the evening of February 1, 2010, Lorenzo Raytos was at Purok 1, Barangay Nagcaduha, Villareal, Samar, coming from his cousin's place, when Indo Sabio invited him to join a table for leftovers from the fiesta and a dance session. Raytos joined Indo Sabio, Anita Sabio, Kanor Sabio, Domingo Sabio, Romeo Nacase, and Edgar Papiona; at the next table were Indo Sabio's wife, Tina, Elsa Sabio, Rudy Araza, and Rudy's wife. At around 11:30 in the evening, David Araza arrived from Purok 2, danced with Edgar Papiona, invited Anita Sabio to dance but was refused, and danced again with Papiona. According to Raytos, Araza then approached his table, asked who was brave enough while drawing a knife tucked in his waistband; Raytos moved backward, got hold of Araza's right hand, twisted his arm, wrested the knife, and stabbed Araza several times on the chest because he panicked. Raytos ran away and surrendered to barangay officials, who brought him to the police station.

Dionisio Mado, a defense witness, testified that at around 10:00 in the evening he was watching the dance session when Araza entered the dance area and challenged the people at one table to a fight; upon seeing Raytos, Araza pointed at him and said "You are the one I want," and Raytos replied "I [h]ave no fault against you." According to Mado, Araza drew a fan knife from his waist and stabbed Raytos, but Raytos parried the blow with both hands, wrested the knife, and stabbed the front portion of Araza's body. On cross-examination, Mado first said it was his first time to testify in court, then admitted he had previously testified for an accused named Pablo Hilvano, who was acquitted, and conceded that his earlier answer was a lie; he also insisted that Araza was wounded on the front chest, even when told that the victim had no chest injury.

The prosecution presented Edgardo Papiona, Romeo Nacase, and Francisca Araza. Papiona testified that at around 12:00 a.m. on February 1, 2010, he was in front of his house with Raytos and ten others at three tables during a dance session; while Papiona was dancing with Araza, Raytos approached and said he wanted to dance with Araza, so Papiona stepped aside to the road about an arm's length away. From there, Papiona saw Raytos hold Araza's right back shoulder and stab him several times on the back with an 8-inch knife while Araza had his back turned; Raytos then went toward a hilly portion of the barangay, while Papiona helped load Araza on a truck for the hospital. Papiona heard no argument between Raytos and Araza before the stabbing, and Araza died three days later.

Nacase testified that at around 9:00 in the evening he was having a drinking spree with Araza and Dado Nacase; later, while Araza and Edgar were dancing, Raytos pulled a knife from his pocket, approached Araza from behind, held his shirt, and stabbed him in the back from a distance, with no argument or talk between them before the stabbing. Francisca Araza, the victim's wife, testified that she was left with eleven children; she identified receipts for ₱4,986.00 in hospitalization and medical expenses and a certification from Rendeza Funeral Parlor for ₱8,000.00 in embalming services, and said her husband used to earn an average monthly income of ₱2,000.00.

The Medico Legal Report dated February 4, 2010 showed a 2 cm stab wound on the right scapular area, a 3 cm stab wound on the right posterior axillary line, a 3.5 cm stab wound on the right flank area, and a stab wound on the left infrascapular area. The RTC gave no weight to Mado's testimony, noting inconsistencies, and found that the victim was dancing when attacked, with no confrontation or forewarning, and that the wounds were on the back; both the RTC and the CA found that Raytos suddenly stabbed Araza from behind.

• Self-Defense: Raytos argued that the CA erred in convicting him of Murder and in not appreciating self-defense; he claimed Araza drew a knife after a brief exchange, he moved back, wrested the knife, and stabbed Araza.
• Treachery: Raytos contended that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established, arguing that if he wanted to ensure no risk to himself he would have chosen another time and place instead of the dancing area where many people were around.

• Self-Defense: Whether the CA erred in convicting Raytos of Murder and not appreciating the self-defense he interposed.
• Treachery: Whether the CA erred in convicting Raytos of Murder when the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established.

• Self-Defense: No. Raytos failed to establish unlawful aggression, the foremost element of self-defense; the mere drawing of a knife was not unlawful aggression, and after he disarmed Araza any aggression had ceased.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery was sufficiently established because Raytos suddenly stabbed Araza from behind while the victim was dancing, without warning and without giving him a chance to defend himself.

• Self-Defense: Self-defense admits the killing and shifts the burden to the accused to prove (i) unlawful aggression, (ii) reasonable means, and (iii) lack of sufficient provocation; unlawful aggression is the foremost requirement, and absent it self-defense, complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated. The SC found Raytos's narration incredible: he claimed that while moving backward to escape he grabbed Araza's hand, twisted it, wrested the knife, and stabbed Araza several times in quick succession, a version the SC found difficult to imagine and contrary to common experience. Even if believed, Araza's mere drawing of a knife did not amount to unlawful aggression; under People vs. Dulin, unlawful aggression is actual or imminent danger, not a mere threatening or intimidating action, and under People vs. Escarlos and People vs. Borreros, drawing a knife or gun from the waist is not yet unlawful aggression. Mado's testimony that Araza actually stabbed Raytos was not credible: he admitted lying about his prior court testimony, insisted on a front chest wound despite the absence of such injury, and his account was unsupported by the Feb. 4, 2010 Medico Legal Report, while Raytos himself never mentioned such stabbing blows. Even assuming unlawful aggression existed, it ceased when Raytos disarmed Araza; Raytos admitted he was no longer in danger after wresting the knife, so the subsequent stabbing was retaliation, not self-defense, under Martinez vs. Court of Appeals and People vs. Escarlos.
• Treachery: Treachery or alevosia is present when the offender adopts means, methods, or forms in the execution of the felony that ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make; it is characterized by a deliberate, sudden, and unexpected assault from behind, without warning and without giving the victim a chance to defend himself. The prosecution witnesses were unwavering that Raytos suddenly stabbed Araza from the back while holding his shoulder; the RTC found no confrontation or forewarning, and the medico legal report showed stab wounds on the back. The presence of other people around did not negate treachery because treachery considers only the victim's means of defense at the time of the attack. People vs. Rellon was relevant: there, the victim was stabbed from behind while watching the Sinulog festival, and the accused also claimed self-defense; the SC upheld treachery. Thus the RTC and CA findings on treachery were affirmed.

• Self-defense — A plea admits the killing; the accused bears the burden to prove unlawful aggression, reasonable means, and lack of sufficient provocation; unlawful aggression is the foremost element. Applied: Raytos failed to prove unlawful aggression, and after he disarmed Araza there was no longer any danger justifying the killing.
• Unlawful aggression — It has two kinds: actual or material unlawful aggression and imminent unlawful aggression; it must be actual, sudden, unexpected, or imminent danger, not a mere threatening or intimidating action. Applied: Araza's mere drawing of a knife did not create imminent peril; Mado's claim that Araza actually stabbed Raytos was not credible.
• Treachery (alevosia) — Present when the offender adopts means, methods, or forms in the execution of the felony that ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make; characterized by a deliberate, sudden, unexpected assault from behind, without warning and without giving the victim a chance to defend himself. Applied: Raytos stabbed Araza from behind while the victim was dancing, qualifying the killing to Murder.
• Credibility of witnesses and trial court findings — The trial court's assessment of witness credibility is given great weight and respect, especially when affirmed by the CA; absent clear error, its findings are not disturbed on appeal. Applied: the SC deferred to the RTC and CA findings and rejected Raytos's and Mado's versions.
• Damages in Murder under People vs. Jugueta — In this case, following People vs. Jugueta, the SC increased civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱75,000.00 each and temperate damages to ₱50,000.00, with 6% interest per annum from finality.

• "Unlawful aggression is predicated on an actual, sudden, unexpected, or imminent danger - not merely a threatening or intimidating action." — The SC uses this to reject Raytos's claim that Araza's drawing of a knife justified self-defense.
• "Time and again, this Court has held that when an unlawful aggression that has begun has ceased to exist, the one who resorts to self-defense has no right fo kill or even to wound the former aggressor." — The SC cites this to hold that Raytos could not claim self-defense after he had already disarmed Araza.
• "Treachery or alevosia, is present when the offender adopts means, methods, or forms in the execution of the felony that ensure its commission without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." — This is the definition the SC applies to qualify the killing as Murder.
• "Alevosia is characterized by a deliberate, sudden and unexpected assault from behind, without warning and without giving the victim a chance to defend himself or repel the assault and without risk to the assailant." — The SC uses this to explain why the sudden stabbing from behind was treacherous.

• People vs. Dulin, G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015, 760 SCRA 413 — Relied on for the two kinds and nature of unlawful aggression.
• People vs. Escarlos, 457 Phil. 580 (2003) — Followed; mere drawing of a knife is not unlawful aggression, and self-defense cannot justify killing after aggression has ceased.
• People vs. Borreros, 366 Phil. 360 (1999) — Followed; drawing a gun from the waist is not yet unlawful aggression.
• Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, 549 Phil. 683 (2007) — Cited on self-defense as a question of fact and on the rule that killing after aggression has ceased is retaliation.
• People vs. Rellon, 249 Phil. 73 (1988) — Relied on for treachery where the victim was stabbed from behind while watching a festival, despite the accused's self-defense claim.
• People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331 — Relied on to modify and increase the damages awarded.
• People vs. Arguelles, 294 Phil. 188 (1993) — Cited for the definition of treachery.
• People vs. Villanueva, 215 Phil. 58 (1984) — Cited for the characterization of alevosia as a deliberate, sudden, and unexpected assault from behind.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Murder; the SC affirmed Raytos's conviction under this article, qualified by treachery, with reclusion perpetua.
• Section 13, Rule 124, Rules of Court — The procedural basis for Raytos's appeal from the CA to the SC; the SC entertained the appeal and dismissed it for lack of merit.