G.R. No. 233479 - People vs. Doca y Villaluna

Appellant Jomar Doca y Villaluna was charged with murder for killing Roger C. Celestino, a 17-year-old minor.
The killing occurred on or about July 1, 2007 in the Municipality of Solana, Province of Cagayan.
The Charge Under Information alleged that appellant, armed with a Rambo knife, attacked, assaulted, and fatally stabbed Roger with evident premeditation and treachery while the victim was unarmed.

The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court - Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
At arraignment, appellant pleaded “not guilty” and later testified as the lone witness for the defense.
The prosecution presented several witnesses including:

Rogelio Castro (eyewitness who saw the stabbing incident).
Benjamin Cabisora (a relative of the victim and friend of the accused).
Dr. Rebecca Battung (who testified on the cause of death related to blood loss).
SPO3 Bienimax Constantino and PO3 Roque Binayug (who testified about the recovery of the Rambo knife at the scene).

The testimony of the victim’s father, Pablo Celestino, was dispensed with per stipulation regarding the actual damages.

Appellant, found in a waiting shed appearing drunk and angry, was specifically looking for Roger.
As Roger passed by, appellant stabbed him in the left breast causing him to collapse and subsequently die.

Benjamin Cabisora corroborated that after Roger had walked into the waiting shed, he suddenly fell to the ground.
Forensic evidence, as testified by Dr. Battung and supported by police reports, confirmed death by shock secondary to severe hemorrhage from the stab wound.

He was waiting for his friend at a waiting shed when Roger appeared.
Roger allegedly attacked him by boxing him and drawing a fan knife (balisong), prompting appellant to wrest the weapon and stab Roger in defense.

Appellant contended that his subsequent voluntary surrender further demonstrated his lack of criminal intent.

The trial court found appellant guilty of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The conviction was based on the prosecution’s presentation of corroborative eyewitness testimonies and evidence.
Despite appellant’s admission of having caused Roger’s death with a self-defense claim, the court held he failed to establish the required elements to justify killing.
The trial court characterized the killing as having been committed with treachery, despite not finding sufficient evidence of premeditation.
Monetary awards were imposed, including civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages.

Appellant challenged the trial court’s reliance on eyewitness testimonies and the imputation of treachery.
The Court of Appeals, while acknowledging errors such as not crediting the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, nonetheless affirmed the conviction.
The appellate court modified the monetary awards by:

Deleting the award for actual damages.
Increasing the awards for civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.
Granting temperate damages along with the imposition of interest on the monetary awards.

Appellant sought an outright reversal, contending errors in the appraisal of witness testimonies and in finding treachery.
His primary contention was that his self-defense claim should have led to an acquittal and a dismissal of the murder charge.
Both appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General adopted the briefs previously presented before the Court of Appeals.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for murder.

Did the evidence sufficiently establish the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation to qualify the killing as murder?
Was appellant’s self-defense claim properly considered in light of the requirement for corroborative evidence of unlawful aggression by the victim?
Should the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender have been given added weight in reducing criminal liability?

The validity of relying solely on the eyewitness testimony of Rogelio Castro amid appellant’s self-serving version.

Whether the trial court’s favorable assessment of credibility of eyewitness accounts was warranted.
If the absence of additional corroborative evidence invalidated the self-defense plea.