People vs. Salazar

An accused who invokes self-defense bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself; failure to establish unlawful aggression, the condition sine qua non of self-defense, is fatal to the defense. The Court also held that treachery qualifies the killing to murder when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The accused-appellant Randy Gajila y Salazar and the victim Gerry Alcantara y Cabling were both butchers working at the Quinta Market in Quiapo, Manila. The victim was employed as a butcher by Ryan Dizon, while the appellant worked as a butcher across the stalls of Ryan. The appellant was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in an Information dated January 30, 2008, alleging that the killing was qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, and that nighttime was purposely sought to better accomplish the criminal design.

On January 24, 2008, Ross Dizon reported for work at the meat section of the Quinta Market along Echague St., Quiapo, Manila, where he was a distributor of pork supplied by his uncle, Ryan Dizon, to different stall holders in the market. The victim, Gerry Alcantara, was Ross's co-worker, employed by Ryan as a butcher. Both worked at the market from 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. At about 3:00 a.m. on the same day, Ross saw the appellant arrive at the market, apparently drunk, walking in a swaying manner. The appellant worked as a butcher across the stalls of Ross's uncle. Because the appellant was drunk, Ross told him to lie down on a bench near their stall.

Moments later, the appellant stood up and approached the victim from behind. At the time, the victim was busy weighing sliced pork meat for distribution to the stalls at the market. The appellant used his left hand to hold the victim in place by the neck and, without saying a word, suddenly stabbed the victim at the back. The victim turned around but was stabbed a second time. The appellant would have succeeded in stabbing the victim again, but Ryan prevented it by pushing a cart in the appellant's direction. The appellant immediately fled the scene, still carrying the butcher's knife stained with the victim's blood, running towards Platerias Street corner Palma Street. He was eventually subdued by civilians and barangay tanods at the market. The victim died at the hospital the following day. Dr. Romeo T. Salen performed the autopsy, and the Medico-Legal Report dated January 29, 2008 indicated that the cause of death was the stab wound sustained at the back.

The appellant raised the justifying circumstance of self-defense. He claimed that at around 3:00 a.m. on January 24, 2008, he was inside his stall waiting for the delivery of his pork meat when the victim suddenly approached him, uttered "[E]to ba," and boxed him. He stood up and fought back upon getting hurt, not knowing what the victim was referring to. The victim continued boxing him, so he embraced the victim and they both fell to the ground. Since the victim was on top of him, he was not able to resist. He picked up the knife on the ground, which he claimed fell from the victim's waist, and stabbed the victim without intending to kill him.

The RTC rejected the appellant's self-defense claim, finding his testimony difficult to believe because it was replete with contradictions and inconsistencies. The RTC noted that the appellant's medical certificate showed no sign of external injuries, contradicting his claim of having been boxed, and that he claimed to have stabbed the victim only once, inconsistent with the autopsy indicating two stab wounds. The RTC held that the killing was attended by treachery, as the attack gave the victim no chance to prepare his defense, but ruled that evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and nighttime were not proven. The CA affirmed with modifications, agreeing that self-defense was not proven and that treachery qualified the killing.

• Self-Defense: The appellant argued that he was able to sufficiently prove the justifying circumstance of self-defense, claiming that the victim was the unlawful aggressor who suddenly approached and boxed him, and that he merely fought back and stabbed the victim with a knife that fell from the victim's waist.
• Treachery: The appellant raised as an issue whether the victim's stabbing was attended by treachery, contesting the lower courts' finding that the killing was qualified by this circumstance.

N/A — The decision does not separately recount the prosecution's arguments on appeal beyond its position that the conviction should be affirmed.

• Self-Defense: Whether the appellant was able to sufficiently prove the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
• Treachery: Whether the victim's stabbing was attended by treachery.

• Self-Defense: No. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a justifying circumstance.
• Treachery: Yes. The killing was attended by treachery, the appellant having employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tended directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might make.

• Self-Defense: When the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defense, and it becomes incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the existence of three requisites: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The most important requisite is unlawful aggression, which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense; without it, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated, for the two other essential elements would have no factual and legal bases. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. The accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. The appellant failed to discharge this burden. First, it was undisputed that he tried to flee the situs criminis immediately after the stabbing incident, and it was only through the concerted efforts of civilians and barangay tanods that his escape attempt was thwarted; flight is a veritable badge of guilt and negates the plea of self-defense. The appellant's contention that he ran because he intended to voluntarily surrender at the barangay was not credible, as he could have easily surrendered to Milagros Reyes, one of the barangay tanods chasing him, but kept running until subdued by Edgardo Reyes. Second, the location, nature, and seriousness of the wounds sustained by the victim were inconsistent with a plea of self-defense; rather, these factors indicated a determined effort to kill. Dr. Salen testified that the stab wound at the back was fatal, penetrating the intestines, mesentery, and right lobe of the victim's liver. Third, the appellant's own account of the incident was inconsistent with the evidence on record. He testified that he stabbed the victim just once on the left side, right below the armpit, while he was underneath the victim on the ground, which should have produced a downward thrust; however, the victim sustained two stab wounds, and the direction of the fatal wound at the back was an upward thrust, indicating that the assailant was at the back of the victim. The absence of any physical evidence showing that the appellant sustained injury from the alleged attack further undermined his claim; his medical certificate showed no external signs of physical injury. The appellant's self-serving and unsubstantiated allegations that the victim was the unlawful aggressor failed when weighed against the positive, straightforward, and overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, for self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when it is uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.

• Treachery: There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case, the records clearly showed that the killing was attended by treachery: (a) the victim was fatally stabbed from behind; (b) the appellant was holding the victim by the neck with his left arm when he delivered the first stabbing blow; and (c) the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim was unable to defend himself. The totality of these circumstances clearly showed that the means of execution of the attack gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and said means of execution was deliberately adopted by the appellant. A sudden attack against an unarmed victim clearly constitutes treachery.

• Self-Defense — When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defense, and the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the existence of three requisites: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, for by invoking self-defense, the accused in effect admits having killed or injured the victim and can no longer be acquitted if he fails to prove the essential requisites. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the appellant's self-serving and unsubstantiated allegations of unlawful aggression failed against the prosecution's positive and overwhelming evidence.

• Unlawful Aggression — Unlawful aggression is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a justifying circumstance; without it, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated, for the two other essential elements would have no factual and legal bases. The test for its presence is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. The accused must establish the concurrence of three elements: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the appellant failed to prove that unlawful aggression originated from the victim, as his flight from the scene, the nature of the victim's wounds, and the inconsistencies in his account all negated his claim.

• Treachery — There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the finding of treachery, as the victim was fatally stabbed from behind while being held by the neck, and the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.

• "The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Nugas, articulates the controlling test for unlawful aggression, the condition sine qua non of self-defense, and was central to the Court's rejection of the appellant's defense.

• "Flight is a veritable badge of guilt and negates the plea of selfdefense." — This passage states the evidentiary significance of flight in criminal cases and was applied by the Court to undermine the appellant's claim of self-defense, as he attempted to flee the scene immediately after the stabbing.

• "A sudden attack against an unarmed victim, such as in this case, clearly constitutes treachery." — This passage, quoted from the CA decision, encapsulates the Court's application of the treachery doctrine to the facts, where the victim was attacked from behind while preoccupied with his work.

• People vs. Nugas, 677 Phil. 168 (2011) — Cited as authority for the test for unlawful aggression and the proposition that self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when it is uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.
• People vs. Rubiso, 447 Phil. 374 (2003) — Cited for the requisites of self-defense and the shifting of the burden of proof to the defense when self-defense is invoked.
• People vs. Gumayao, 460 Phil. 735 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that flight is a veritable badge of guilt and negates the plea of self-defense, and that the accused must rely on the strength of his evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence.
• People vs. Alajay, 456 Phil. 83 (2003) — Cited for the definition of treachery and the principle that the means of execution must give the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited as the prevailing jurisprudence in conformity with which the award of exemplary damages was increased to ₱75,000.00.

• Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code — The provision defining the justifying circumstance of self-defense, requiring unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The Court applied this provision in determining that the appellant failed to prove the requisites of self-defense.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining the crime of murder, under which the appellant was convicted. The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the killing was qualified by treachery.

Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (Chairperson), Francis H. Jardeleza, Noel Gimenez Tijam, and Alexander G. Gesmundo.

N/A — No dissenting opinion is noted in the provided text.