HERNANDO, J.:
That on or about the 18th day of January 2009, at Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with the qualifying aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery as well as the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one ARNEL BAGAN y SIMPLINA, by then and there barging into the home of the victim and then repeatedly stabbing the victim therein in the chest with the use of a kitchen knife, thereby inflicting upon the said ARNEL BAGAN y SIMPLINA, serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim.The Facts:
The above attendant circumstances were present in the commission of the crime because accused planned the commission of the crime prior to its execution until its commission consciously adopting the means and methods of the attack, done suddenly and unexpectedly in order that the victim will not be able to defend himself and to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to the accused.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
[T]here were three stab wounds x x x[:] one stab wound was 12 cm deep and was caused by a sharp object such as a knife. The thrust of that stab wound perforated the heart and penetrated the upper part of the left lung, which was sufficient to cause the death of the victim. Another stab wound was more or less located x x x just below the ribcage in the upper right abdominal part, 7 cm deep. The thrust was from the front to the back and upward and to the middle of the body, penetrating the heart at the level of the 7th rib. x x x [T]he blade used was about 11 cm in length. The last stab wound was at the left upper arm and was superficial. [The victim had abrasions on both knees x x x and on the right pectoral region of the right upper breast.[9]For his part, Perreira completely denied the narrative of the prosecution. He claimed that Bagan was the aggressor who attacked him while he was walking down the street. The attack purportedly came hours after a confrontation between Perreira and the Spouses Bagan earlier in the day. Thus, Perreira was forced to defend himself which caused him to stab the victim.
The mother of the accused, Leonila Pereira, testified that the victim, Arne1 Bagan, was their neighbor in Sto. Cristo Street, Balintawak, Quezon City. Their house is only five (5) meters away from that of the victim, or nine houses away.In addition, Perreira claimed that in the event he is found guilty of killing the victim, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered in his favor.
On 18 January 2009 about late afternoon, her son Melvin Pereira went out of their house to confront their neighbor Caloy Bagan (victim herein), whose wife Virgie hit her (Leonila) with a coffee mug in the head. She does not know of any reason why Virgie hit her. When she was hit, she felt dizzy which caused her to lean on the wall. Her neighbor Nelia helped her and brought her home. She then called her sister and she was brought to Quezon City General Hospital for treatment. After which, she went home and rested.
Her children, accused Melvin and daughter Melissa, learned about what happened to her and became very angry. The accused kept on shouting and was very mad because of what was done to her by Virgie.
Thereafter, she proceeded to the barangay to report the incident and because she was worried about the accused who was very angry during that time. When she returned home, there were already police officers and she was told by Virgie Bagan that her husband was stabbed by the accused.
Upon learning it, she asked the assistance of the barangay to find her son Melvin. She found her son at the house of her cousin and she surrendered him to the barangay. Her son had a stab wound on his forearm and was brought to the hospital for treatment. The latter was not armed with any knife at the time he left their house.
When she was able to talk to her son, the latter admitted that the incident was brought to her by what was done to her by Virgie. The accused further told her that when he confronted the victim, Virgie was not there but only Arne!who was armed with a gun. According to her son, he was constrained to use a knife in order to defend himself.
On January 18, 2009, the accused, Melvin Perreira, was at home sleeping. At around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, he woke up and saw his mother's head wrapped with bandage. He asked his mother what happened and learned that Ate Virgie Bagan hit her with a glass. He had no knowledge of any reason why his mother was hit.
Upon learning it, he got angry and after about fifteen (15) minutes, told his mother that he was going to see Virgie to talk to her. His siblings warned him of what might happen if he would go to Virgie, but he told them that he would only talk to Virgie.
Upon reaching the house of Virgie, the latter and her husband Arnel were there. He asked why she (Virgie) did that to his mother. Virgie answered him in a loud voice and angrily told him that what happened was just right for his mother. Arnel also told him that it was not even enough and he might as well include him. After hearing this, he went home to avoid further trouble.
At around 6:40 o'clock in the evening of the same date, he went out of their house to buy some bath soap. When he was on his way home, he was surprised when Arnel suddenly appeared in front of the latter's house from the sidecar of his motorcycle. Arnel was hiding a kitchen knife with a length of more or less fourteen (14) inches.
Suddenly, Arnel stabbed him. He was not hit during the first thrust, however, he was hit in his left hand during the second thrust. After which, he was able to hold the right hand of Arnel, which was holding the knife. He embraced Arne!from behind to stop him. They slipped and fell on the concrete pavement. Because of that, Arnel lost hold of the knife and he was able to get it. Thereafter, he felt dizzy because of blood loss and lost his senses and stabbed the victim.
After the incident, he went to Edubas Compound at Sitio Tibagan, Barangay Balingasa to see his aunt who was working thereat and ask for help. It took him fifteen (15) minutes of walking to reach the said area.
He did not intend to evade liability of prosecution by going to Edubas Compound. He merely went there to seek help from his tita for his surrender. In fact, when the barangay officials arrived, he went with them peacefully and surrendered the knife used in stabbing the victim.
The accused did not have any intention to kill the victim, nor did he plan to kill him. He also did not intend to employ force and violence upon the victim. In fact, he was not carrying any weapon during that time.[11]
WHEREFORE, accused Melvin Pereira y Montalbo @ "Bulik" is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with a duration of Twenty (20) Years and One (1) Day to Forty (40) Years, and the said accused shall suffer Perpetual Absolute Disqualification as an accessory to the principal penalty. Accused is further ordered to pay the heirs of Arnel Bagan y Simplina, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In the service of his sentence, accused is x x x credited with four-fifths (4/5) of the preventive imprisonment undergone by him, there being no showing that he agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.[12]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated February 5, 2013 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City finding the accused Melvin Pereira y Montalbo guilty of the offense of murder is AFFIRMED.[13]
Hence, this appeal by Montalvo raising the following issues:[14]I
THE [LOWER COURTS] GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE.II
ASSUMING THAT HIS DEFENSE IS UNAVAILING, THE [LOWER COURTS] GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT.III
GRANTING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY HEREOF, THE [LOWER COURTS] GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE[15]Our Ruling
This supposed prior incident between the Bagans and Perreira's mother could have been clarified by the defense during Virgie's cross examination. Unfortunately, it opted not to cross-examine Virgie. In any event, the incident testified to by Perreira's mother has no bearing on his claim of self-defense in the killing of Bagan.
ATTY. MADAMBA Q
ADuring your first direct examination you testified that on January 18, 2009 in the morning you were out to buy breakfast, would you still confirm that?
Yes, Sir.Q
AAnd you also testified during your initial direct examination that while on your way home coming from buying breakfast you happened to pass by the house of Virgie Bagan, would you still confirm that?
Yes, Sir.Q
AAnd while you were at the place of Virgie Bagan you also testified that you were hit by a coffee mug, would you still confirm that?
Yes, Sir.Q
AHowever, during your initial direct examination you testified that it was Caloy Bagan who hit you with a mug?
It was Virgie, Sir.Q A
So during your initial direct you testified that it was Caloy Bagan and now you are claiming that it was Virgie Bagan who hit you with a coffee mug, which of the two now is the correct facts of the case?
It was Virgie Bagan who hit me with a coffee mug, Sir.Q
ANow, Madam Witness, kindly explain to the Honorable Court why did you commit such inconsistency during your first direct examination?
Because I did not understand it fully well the first time and my sense of hearing is very poor and I was nervous during the first time that I testified here in court, Sir.Q
AYou also testified during your direct examination that the hitting of the mug occurred in the late afternoon but you said a while ago that the hitting incident happened or took place in the morning, which now is the correct facts of the case, Madam Witness?
The hitting incident happened in the morning, Sir.Q
ANow, kindly tell to this Honorable Court, what is the time did the hitting of the mug on you exactly took place (sic)?
At around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, Sir.Q A
Now, after you were hit by a mug what happened to you?
I felt dizzy and I leaned on the wall, Sir.Q Despite being hit by a mug, were you able to call for a help? ACP FELIPE Your Honor, please, we would like to object on the ground of ... may we know the materiality of the testimony because we do not see the connection with the murder incident. ATTY. MADAMBA The witness here, Your Honor, is the mother of the accused and our defense is that the accused was only forced to commit the crime if not accidentally committed the crime, Your Honor, because of the incident between the complainant and the mother. ACPFELIPE Okay, Your Honor. COURT Witness may answer.[19] (Emphasis supplied)
Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in involving self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[21] (emphasis supplied)The lower courts cannot, therefore, be faulted for rejecting Perreira's plea of self-defense.
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:[17]See People v. Gutierrez, 625 Phil. 471,481 (2010).
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
xxx