People v. Obordo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 23, 1997, at dawn, in Barangay Antipolo, Dapitan City, Homer Jamarolin was fatally stabbed. The prosecution alleged that accused-appellant Norman Obordo y Bulalakaw, armed with a hunting knife, attacked Homer Jamarolin with treachery and evident premeditation. The incident occurred after a drinking spree and a confrontation between Edgar Bendillo and Ronald Alap-ap, companions of the victim and accused-appellant, respectively. Edgar Bendillo testified that accused-appellant called the victim to light his cigarette, and while the victim was doing so, accused-appellant suddenly stabbed him. The victim retaliated by punching accused-appellant, who then fled. Dr. Bernardo Palma conducted the autopsy, finding a stab wound causing acute anemia. The victim's father, Renelio Jamarolin, claimed damages. Procedural History: Accused-appellant Norman Obordo y Bulalakaw was charged with murder. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, Branch 11, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay damages. Accused-appellant appealed. The Petition: Accused-appellant assigned as errors the trial court's failure to consider self-defense and its appreciation of treachery.
Issue(s)
Whether accused-appellant Norman Obordo y Bulalakaw is guilty of murder. Whether the killing was attended by treachery. Whether accused-appellant's claim of self-defense is tenable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding accused-appellant Norman Obordo y Bulalakaw guilty of murder, with modification as to the award of damages. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. Accused-appellant was ordered to pay the heirs of Homer Jamarolin P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for murder: Based on the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court upheld the conviction of accused-appellant for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Since no aggravating circumstance was present, the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua was deemed proper. The Court increased the award for moral damages from P15,000.00 to P50,000.00, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, while affirming the civil indemnity of P50,000.00. On the issue of treachery: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the killing was attended by treachery. Treachery requires the employment of means to insure the execution of the offense without risk to the offender, and the deliberate adoption of such means. The Court found that Homer Jamarolin was unaware of the murderous design of accused-appellant and was stabbed suddenly and without warning while in the act of lighting accused-appellant's cigarette. This mode of attack, which afforded the victim no opportunity to defend himself and exposed the offender to no risk, was consciously adopted by accused-appellant. The fact that the attack was frontal did not negate treachery, as it was sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim no chance to retaliate. On the issue of self-defense: The Court held that accused-appellant failed to prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof shifted to him upon admitting the killing. The requisites of self-defense, namely unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation, were not established. The Court found that the victim's act of offering his lighted cigarette to accused-appellant did not constitute unlawful aggression. Furthermore, even if the victim had punched accused-appellant, the immediate stabbing with a hunting knife was deemed an unreasonable and unnecessary means of defense against a bare-fist punch. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Edgar Bendillo and Rolando Jamarolin, who were found more credible by the trial court, contradicted the accused-appellant's claim of unlawful aggression by the victim.
Main Doctrine
The claim of self-defense requires proof of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Treachery is present when the offender employs means to insure execution without risk to himself, characterized by a sudden and unexpected attack without provocation, depriving the victim of any real chance to defend himself.