Nacario v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cosme Nacario was charged with Frustrated Murder for stabbing Medardo de Villa with a balisong on March 29, 1997, at Sto. Domingo, Iriga City. The victim sustained a stab wound to the upper left portion of his abdomen, penetrating the diaphragm and incising the spleen. Petitioner surrendered to the police and admitted the stabbing but claimed self-defense, alleging the victim initiated the attack with a fan knife and that he only stabbed the victim after the latter turned his back to pick up stones. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City convicted petitioner of Frustrated Homicide. The RTC rejected the claim of self-defense, finding that after petitioner allegedly wrestled the knife away, there was an interval of time during which the victim turned his back, and petitioner could have run away. The RTC believed petitioner was in possession of the knife all along. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The CA also adjusted the damages awarded. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, maintaining his claim of self-defense and arguing that the victim's actions, including picking up stones, still posed a threat.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense; and whether the elements of self-defense were sufficiently proven by the petitioner. Whether the penalty and damages awarded by the appellate court are proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of petitioner for Frustrated Homicide with modification regarding the award of damages. The Court deleted the award of P25,000 as indemnity and ordered the payment of P30,000 as temperate damages in its stead. All other aspects of the Court of Appeals' decision were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of self-defense: The Court held that petitioner failed to prove the elements of self-defense. It reiterated that unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is a condition sine qua non for self-defense. The Court found that even assuming the victim initially committed unlawful aggression by attempting to stab petitioner with a balisong, such aggression ceased when the victim was divested of the weapon. At that point, there was no longer any imminent risk to petitioner's life or personal safety. The Court found petitioner's claim that the victim was still a threat after losing the knife, by picking up stones, to be incredible, especially since petitioner had an interval of time to escape after warding off prior attempts. The Court emphasized that the presence of unlawful aggression is indispensable for self-defense to be considered a justifying circumstance, and its absence renders the discussion of other elements unnecessary. The Court brushed aside petitioner's plea of self-defense, aligning with the findings of the lower courts. On the penalty and damages: The Court found the modification by the appellate court of the penalty well-taken, acknowledging the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The reduction of actual damages was also deemed well-taken, as it conformed to the documentary evidence presented. The award of moral damages by the appellate court was also affirmed as it was in consonance with law and prevailing jurisprudence. However, the award of P25,000 as indemnity was deleted for lack of legal basis, and in its stead, temperate damages were ordered to be paid.
Main Doctrine
The element of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-defense to be a justifying circumstance. Once the unlawful aggression ceases, the accused can no longer claim self-defense, especially if there was an interval of time to escape or if the victim was no longer in a position to pose an imminent threat.