G.R. No. 79672 February 15, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSENDO DELGADO ALIAS “NONGNONG”, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Rosendo Delgado, was convicted of Murder for the killing of Santos Zamoras. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the eyewitness account of Rogelio Zamoras, the 15-year-old son of the victim. He testified that on August 9, 1984, he saw his father, Santos, initially stab another individual, Clemente Zamoras, during a fight. After this, Santos sat on the pavement, resting his head on his hands. Shortly thereafter, Rogelio saw the appellant, Rosendo Delgado, approach his father from behind and stab him multiple times with a bolo while he was in this defenseless position. Rogelio attempted to intervene by throwing a stone before fleeing to inform his mother.
The appellant admitted to the stabbing but claimed self-defense. He testified that after Santos Zamoras had stabbed Clemente, Santos challenged him to a fight. He claimed that Santos attacked him first with a knife, and he only used his bolo to defend himself. The trial court rejected this version, giving full credence to the testimony of the young eyewitness, which was consistent with the postmortem findings showing multiple fatal wounds, including a stab wound on the back.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) the credibility of the lone eyewitness; (2) the validity of the appellant’s claim of self-defense; and (3) the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the alleged mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On credibility, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, finding no reason to deviate from its conclusion that Rogelio Zamoras testified in a straightforward and credible manner. His testimony was deemed more reliable than the appellant’s self-serving claim.
On self-defense, the Court emphasized that once an accused admits the killing, the burden of proof shifts to him to prove the justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. The appellant failed to discharge this burden. The Court agreed with the trial court that there was no unlawful aggression from the victim at the time he was attacked by Delgado. The victim was sitting down with his head bowed, rendering him completely defenseless. The claim of an initial attack by Santos was not credible and was contradicted by the eyewitness account and the nature of the wounds, including one inflicted on the back.
The Court affirmed the presence of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden, from behind, and directed at a victim who was in no position to offer any defense. This method ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the appellant. Finally, the Court rejected the claim of voluntary surrender. The official records, including the arrest report, indicated the appellant was apprehended pursuant to a warrant, negating any spontaneous surrender. The decision of the Regional Trial Court sentencing the appellant to reclusion perpetua was affirmed.