People v. So y Orbes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 2, 1991, appellant Elyboy So met Teresita Domingo and accompanied her home. While walking, they passed by his cousins' house where a drinking spree was ongoing. Edgar So invited Elyboy to join, which he initially declined but later accepted to meet Edgar's future brother-in-law, Mario Tuquero. During the drinking spree, an altercation occurred between Elyboy and someone, leading to loud shouting. Mario Tuquero advised Elyboy to go home due to the disturbance. Later, around 4:00 a.m. on June 3, 1991, while Mario Tuquero and Emy So were waiting for a taxi, Elyboy So suddenly appeared from behind and repeatedly stabbed Mario Tuquero with a fan knife. Emy So's pleas to stop were ignored. Elyboy fled the scene. Mario Tuquero was brought to the hospital where he died from multiple stab wounds. Elyboy surrendered to the police later. Procedural History: Elyboy So was charged with murder. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Manila convicted him of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Mario Tuquero. The appellant appealed the decision. The Petition: The appellant assigned several errors, including the lower court's overruling of self-defense, its discrediting of his testimony, its finding of treachery, its disregard of insanity as an exempting circumstance, and its conviction for murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant acted in self-defense. Whether the appellant was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Whether the killing was attended by treachery. Whether the trial court erred in its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the evidence presented.
Ruling
The appeal is DISMISSED, and the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED in toto. The appellant Elyboy So is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Mario Tuquero in the amount of P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of self-defense: The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the elements of self-defense. The claim that the victim attacked him with a knife was contradicted by glaring inconsistencies in his testimony, particularly regarding the speed of the attack and his ability to wrest the knife. Even if unlawful aggression was initially present, it ceased when the appellant gained possession of the weapon. The subsequent repeated stabbing, especially after the victim allegedly embraced the appellant for dear life, indicated no further necessity to repel aggression. The extensive number of stab wounds (eighteen) on various parts of the victim's body, including the posterior aspects, further negated self-defense and pointed towards a determined effort to kill. On the issue of insanity: The Court found the claim of insanity unmeritorious. The burden of proving insanity rests on the accused, requiring complete deprivation of intelligence or discernment at the time of the act. The testimony of the psychiatrist indicated that the appellant had a history of psychosis but was doing well and relieved from psychosis at the time of his discharge six years prior to the incident. The psychiatrist's testimony also suggested that the illness could be dormant and that the appellant might have been able to function normally, even completing college. The appellant's detailed recollection of events, except for the number of wounds, did not demonstrate a complete lack of discernment. The Court reiterated that mere abnormality of mental faculties does not exclude imputability, and feigning insanity as a defense is common. On the issue of treachery: The Court agreed with the trial court that the killing was attended by treachery. The prosecution's witness testified that the appellant suddenly attacked the victim from behind, inflicting wounds on the posterior aspect of his body. When the victim fell, the appellant continued stabbing him on the anterior parts. This mode of attack, employing means to ensure execution without risk to himself, clearly demonstrated treachery. The appellant's lack of any injury further supported this conclusion. On the credibility of witnesses and evidence: The Court gave no credence to the appellant's argument to discredit the prosecution witness, Emy So, based on alleged bias due to family grudges or her relationship with the victim. The Court reiterated the rule that mere relationship does not automatically impair credibility, and the witness's testimony was not inherently improbable. The physical evidence, particularly the Necropsy Report detailing eighteen stab wounds, corroborated the prosecution's version of the events and contradicted the appellant's claim of self-defense. The trial court's findings on credibility, having observed the witnesses' deportment, were given great weight.
Main Doctrine
The claim of self-defense requires proof of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Insanity as an exempting circumstance requires complete deprivation of intelligence or discernment at the time of the commission of the act. The number and nature of wounds inflicted, coupled with the absence of injury to the accused, can negate self-defense and indicate treachery.