People v. Damitan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Elmer Damitan y Mantawel, was charged with Murder for allegedly stabbing Leon Cahapon, Sr. on April 27, 1998. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that Damitan arrived at the barrio hall where the victim was fixing a horse's rope and suddenly stabbed him twice from behind with a hunting knife. The victim sustained mortal injuries and died instantaneously. Damitan surrendered to the military detachment thereafter. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, Branch 8, found Elmer Damitan y Mantawel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The trial court also ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, raising errors concerning the trial court's disregard of his defense of self-defense, his conviction for Murder, and the failure to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant validly invoked self-defense. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery, thus constituting Murder. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been appreciated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the accused guilty of Murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the award of damages by granting moral damages to the heirs of the victim. The Court agreed that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present but held that it did not affect the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is an indivisible penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's rejection of the plea of self-defense. It reiterated the rule that when an accused admits the killing but invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove the elements of his defense by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found the appellant's version of the incident to be uncorroborated and self-serving, which could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Court emphasized that for self-defense to be appreciated, there must be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, which was absent in this case as the victim was fixing a horse's rope and was attacked from behind, posing no immediate threat to the appellant. Furthermore, the presence of two fatal stab wounds, one from behind and another while the victim was already down, contradicted the claim of self-defense. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found that treachery qualified the killing to Murder. The Court explained that treachery exists when the attack is sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim defenseless, and the means employed tend to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed that the appellant attacked the victim from behind while the victim was fixing a horse's rope, unaware of the impending danger. The second stab wound inflicted while the victim was already lying down further demonstrated the appellant's intent to insure the commission of the crime without risk to himself. The Court clarified that even if the stab wounds were frontal, the manner of attack, originating from behind, established treachery. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court agreed that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present, as the appellant immediately surrendered to the authorities after the incident. However, the Court held that since the penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua, which is an indivisible penalty, the presence of mitigating circumstances does not affect the imposition of the penalty. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that an indivisible penalty shall be applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Main Doctrine
When an accused admits killing a person but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his defense. The presence of two fatal stab wounds on the victim's breast, with the first strike from behind and the second while the victim was already lying down, negates the claim of self-defense. Treachery is present when the attack is sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim defenseless, and the means employed tend to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant.