GR No. 123456, January 30, 2024
People of the Philippines v. Juan Dela Cruz

FACTS

Accused-appellant Juan Dela Cruz was charged with the crime of Murder for the fatal stabbing of Pedro Santos. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence. The defense interposed self-defense, claiming that Santos was the initial aggressor who attacked Dela Cruz with a bladed weapon. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dela Cruz of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Dela Cruz now appeals before the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts erred in not appreciating self-defense and in finding the presence of treachery.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in:
1. Not appreciating the justifying circumstance of self-defense; and
2. Finding that the killing was attended by treachery.

RULING

1. On the claim of self-defense.
The appeal is unmeritorious. Self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proved by clear and convincing evidence by the accused. The burden of evidence shifts to him. Here, Dela Cruz failed to discharge this burden. He did not present conclusive evidence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, who was stabbed multiple times in the back, are incompatible with a claim of a sudden defensive reaction. The physical evidence overwhelmingly negates his narrative and instead suggests a determined assault. Where the accused’s version is improbable and contradicted by the evidence, self-defense cannot prosper.

2. On the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
The appeal is partly meritorious on this point. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the deliberate and conscious adoption of such means. The prosecution evidence shows the attack was sudden. However, the records are bereft of any proof that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted a particular mode of attack to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself. The suddenness alone, absent a showing of deliberate planning or method, is insufficient to establish treachery. Thus, the crime committed is Homicide, not Murder.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Juan Dela Cruz is found guilty of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of *prision mayor* as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of *reclusion temporal* as maximum. The award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the heirs of the victim is affirmed, with all damages subject to legal interest.