G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO MAGALLANES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On September 29, 1991, in Sagbayan, Bohol, accused-appellant Gregorio Magallanes was walking to a cockpit with companions, including Romualdo Cempron and Danilo Salpucial. They passed by Virgilio Tapales, who was drinking at a store. Tapales invited Cempron for a drink, and after Cempron refused, Tapales turned his attention to Magallanes, held him by his shirt, slapped him, and strangled his neck. Seeing a knife tucked in Tapales’ waist, Magallanes pulled out the knife and slashed Tapales, wounding his face and neck, causing Tapales to let go and flee. Magallanes pursued Tapales, and when Tapales fell, Magallanes stabbed him several more times, uttering, “you are already dead in that case.” Magallanes then fled on a motorcycle driven by Salpucial and later surrendered to police. Magallanes and Salpucial were charged with murder and as an accessory, respectively. During arraignment, Magallanes offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, citing mitigating circumstances, but the prosecution refused. After trial, the trial court convicted Magallanes of murder and acquitted Salpucial. Magallanes appealed, invoking self-defense and, alternatively, arguing he should only be convicted of homicide.

ISSUE

1. Whether the accused-appellant successfully proved the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
2. Whether the crime committed was murder or homicide.
3. Whether the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty are applicable.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused-appellant failed to prove self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found that any initial unlawful aggression by Tapales had ceased when he fled. By chasing the unarmed and fleeing Tapales and inflicting multiple stab wounds, Magallanes became the aggressor. The nature and number of wounds—seven stab and incised wounds, one fatal—negated self-defense and indicated a determined effort to kill.
2. The Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were not proven. Treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted without danger to the assailant. The attack began with a sudden physical assault by Tapales, and the ensuing struggle and chase did not constitute a deliberate and treacherous mode of attack. Abuse of superior strength was not established as the combatants were both armed with knives initially, and no evidence showed Magallanes took advantage of superior strength.
3. The Court held that the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty were applicable. Magallanes surrendered to authorities after the incident, constituting voluntary surrender. His offer during arraignment to plead guilty to homicide, while qualified, was a voluntary confession of guilt before the court, entitling him to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, as the qualification did not deny his guilt.
The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision was MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Gregorio Magallanes was convicted of homicide with the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. The award of damages was AFFIRMED.