People v. Quiban
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 31, 1979, appellant Carlito Quiban and his companions disembarked from a fishing boat. While walking, they encountered Romeo Velarde and his crew, who asked to borrow money. Quiban refused but offered to pay for their drinks, which they accepted. The drinking session lasted until midnight. Quiban paid P50.00 for the drinks. Later, Quiban returned to the boat and encountered Velarde and Francisco Tolibas. Quiban went to his cabin, changed trousers, and then, without provocation, attacked Velarde with a knife. Velarde jumped overboard. Quiban then attacked Tolibas, who stumbled and was stabbed. Quiban left, searched for other victims, and upon finding none, returned to the helpless Tolibas and stabbed him several more times. Felimon Ramada, awakened by the commotion, tried to escape by jumping into the water, but Quiban pursued him and stabbed him. Ramada was pulled out of the water by his brother and another person. Quiban swam to the wharf and was arrested. Procedural History: The Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City convicted Carlito Quiban of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity to the heirs of Francisco Tolibas. He was also convicted of frustrated murder and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, with indemnity to the heirs of Filemon Ramada. Quiban appealed. The Petition: The accused appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in finding him to be the aggressor, in finding that he had an ax to grind, in finding treachery, and in not acquitting him.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused Carlito Quiban was the unlawful aggressor. Whether treachery attended the killing of Francisco Tolibas. Whether treachery attended the wounding of Filemon Ramada. Whether the accused is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder in Criminal Case No. 2082, increasing the indemnity to P30,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 2092, the Court modified the conviction from frustrated murder to frustrated homicide, sentencing appellant Carlito Quiban to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Filemon Ramada in the sum of P3,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the accused Carlito Quiban was the unlawful aggressor: The Court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that Carlito Quiban was the aggressor. The prosecution's evidence showed that Quiban attacked Velarde without provocation after Velarde and his group had left the drinking session. The defense's claim that Velarde and Tolibas were armed and attacked Quiban first was found to be unbelievable, especially considering the number of stab wounds inflicted on Tolibas and the fact that Velarde threw away his alleged weapon and jumped overboard. The Court reasoned that the accused felt aggrieved by the circumstances of having to pay P50.00 for the drinks, which was nearly the amount the group intended to borrow, suggesting a motive for aggression. The Court also noted that Quiban admitted under oath that he did not see any weapons when he went to his cabin, contradicting the defense's claim of being attacked by armed individuals. On whether treachery attended the killing of Francisco Tolibas: The Court agreed with the trial court that the crime committed against Francisco Tolibas was murder, with treachery as a qualifying circumstance. While treachery may not have been present at the inception of the attack, it was present during the subsequent attack when Tolibas was already helpless and fleeing. The Court cited U.S. vs. Baluyot and other cases, holding that if there was a break in the continuity of the aggression and the deceased was defenseless when the fatal wound was inflicted, treachery must be considered. The fact that Tolibas suffered four fatal stab wounds, with the first blow already incapacitating him, and Quiban continued to stab him multiple times even after he was helpless, indicated an intent to ensure his death and the presence of treachery. On whether treachery attended the wounding of Filemon Ramada: The Court agreed with the appellant that the lower court erred in finding treachery in the wounding of Filemon Ramada. Ramada testified that he heard Quiban threatening to kill anyone he saw, which would have put him on guard. The Court cited People vs. Doniego, holding that treachery is not present where the assault on one victim must have put others on guard. Therefore, Quiban was guilty of frustrated homicide, not frustrated murder, in this instance. On whether the accused is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense: The Court found the theory of self-defense to be unworthy of credence. To prove self-defense, the appellant must show that he was not the unlawful aggressor, that there was lack of sufficient provocation, and that he employed reasonable means to repel aggression. Quiban failed to establish these elements. The nature and number of wounds on the deceased, consisting of multiple penetrating stab wounds on vital parts, contradicted the claim of self-defense. The autopsy findings showed four stab wounds on Tolibas, with one alone being sufficient to cause death, indicating an intent to kill rather than merely repel aggression. Furthermore, Quiban's failure to present the alleged ax wielded by Romeo Velarde and his admission to the police of killing Tolibas without mentioning self-defense suggested that the defense was an afterthought.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the conviction for the wounding of Filemon Ramada from frustrated murder to frustrated homicide, finding that treachery was not present in the latter due to the victim being put on guard. The Court also reiterated that the number and nature of wounds, coupled with the accused's admission and failure to present exculpatory evidence, can negate a claim of self-defense.