People v. Tumaob, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 23, 1990, at about 9 o'clock in the evening, in Sitio Manggayad, Barangay Manocmanoc, Malay, Aklan, Roseller Tugade was attacked by Wolver Tumaob, Jr., Honorato Sarga, and Policarpio Malicse. The Information alleged that the accused, armed with a knife and a beer bottle, conspired and confederated to attack Tugade with treachery, evident premeditation, and intent to kill, inflicting stab wounds on the chest and an incised wound on the right chest, as well as a lacerated wound on the occipital region of the head. These injuries caused Tugade's death due to cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to hemorrhage. The heirs of Tugade suffered damages. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of the Sixth Judicial Region (Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 1) found all three accused guilty of murder and sentenced Wolver Tumaob, Jr. to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor maximum as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum. Honorato Sarga and Policarpio Malicse were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. All were ordered to indemnify the heirs of Roseller Tugade in the amount of P50,000.00. The Petition: The accused-appellants appealed the decision of the trial court, contending that the court erred in finding the crime committed as murder instead of homicide, in giving credence to the prosecution's witnesses, and in not acquitting Tumaob on the ground of self-defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the crime committed as murder instead of homicide. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting Wolver Tumaob, Jr. on the ground of self-defense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the guilt of the accused-appellants for murder but modified the penalty imposed on Wolver Tumaob, Jr. to account for voluntary surrender. The judgment of the trial court as to the award of indemnity was also affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the crime committed was murder instead of homicide: The Court affirmed the finding of murder, citing the presence of treachery. Treachery was established by the manner of the attack: Malicse pinned the victim's hands behind his back, preventing him from defending himself or retaliating, which facilitated the stabbing by Tumaob and the blow to the head by Sarga with a beer bottle. The Court emphasized that the means employed gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and this method was deliberately adopted. The number and location of the stab wounds, along with other lacerations, indicated a calculated intent to kill, thus establishing treachery. On the issue of giving credence to the prosecution's witnesses: The Court reiterated the rule that the factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded the highest respect. While the defense argued that prosecution witnesses Leny Solano and Gideon Guerrero were biased due to their relationship with the deceased, the Court found no ill motive for them to make false accusations. The Court held that the relationship of a witness to a party does not, by itself, impair credibility if no improper motive can be ascribed. The trial court's conclusions were based on direct, positive, and categorical assertions from Solano and Guerrero, who positively identified the accused-appellants as the perpetrators, and these declarations corresponded with the circumstances of the killing. On the issue of self-defense for Wolver Tumaob, Jr.: The Court found Tumaob's claim of self-defense unconvincing. The injuries sustained by the victim, particularly the fatal stab wounds in the chest, indicated an intention to kill, contradicting Tumaob's assertion that he was merely defending himself during a struggle. Furthermore, the wounds on Tumaob's hands were superficial and insufficient to support his claim of parrying the victim's attacks. The Court stressed that an accused claiming self-defense must prove its essential requisites: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Tumaob failed to prove these requisites by clear and convincing evidence. The Court also noted that the defense of alibi and denial by Sarga and Malicse was unsubstantiated and that their hands were found to be stained with blood at the time of their apprehension, further weakening their claims.
Main Doctrine
The proffer of self-defense connotes an admission of the charge and shifts the burden of proof to the accused, who must then rely on the strength of his own evidence for exculpation.