GR 148519; (May, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148519 ; May 29, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLITO CABICAL @ LITO y ESTEBAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that on December 3, 1996, in Barangay Pieza, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya, eyewitness Joniper Pontino saw appellant Rolito Cabical following the victim, Reynaldo Fernando. Cabical, armed with a piece of wood, struck Fernando on the nape, causing him to slump to the ground and die. Barangay officials who responded found Fernando lying on the road. The defense, however, presented a different version, claiming self-defense. Appellant and his wife testified that Fernando, who was allegedly drunk and holding a stone, confronted and insulted appellant at his home. Appellant claimed Fernando attempted to strike him with the stone, prompting appellant to evade the blow, pick up a piece of wood, and hit Fernando in retaliation.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the killing was attended by treachery to qualify it as murder; (2) whether appellant’s claim of self-defense or the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation should be credited; and (3) the proper determination of damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the awarded damages. The Court rejected the claim of self-defense, as appellant failed to prove the essential elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The testimony of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution was found credible and consistent. Treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack from behind with a piece of wood was sudden and unexpected, depriving Fernando of any chance to defend himself. The Court clarified that treachery need not be specifically alleged in the information as a qualifying circumstance; it is sufficient that the facts constituting it are alleged, which was done here. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated in favor of appellant. Consequently, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed. The Court also awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages, and computed loss of earning capacity based on the victim’s net income and life expectancy.