G.R. No. 24935 - People vs. Ramiscal

On the morning of July 20, 1925, the defendant, Enrique Ramiscal, entered the Chinese store “Kantina Central Carmen” located in the barrio of Luksuhin, Calatagan, Batangas.
Ramiscal’s initial purpose was to purchase a bulb for his flashlight, but an altercation ensued which later resulted in the death of a Chinese customer, identified as Chua Hu.

The defendant engaged in a transaction involving a face powder called “Mavis” and later negotiated the price for a bulb.
During the price negotiation, a verbal argument arose concerning money exchange—specifically, a disagreement over an alleged shortage of 10 cents.
The altercation escalated with verbal insults, during which the victim, Chua Hu, remarked disparagingly towards Ramiscal by saying “You get away; may a lightning strike you; you pretend to buy when you don't want to buy.”

According to Ramiscal’s testimony, after being insulted and expelled from the premises, he was allegedly struck by the store occupants with clubs on his back.
In alleged self-defense against the physical assault, Ramiscal produced his knife from his pocket, resorting to its use.
The defendant claimed that the critical moment occurred outside the store; however, key prosecution witnesses contended that the stabbing occurred inside the store.

Stated he entered the store at the same time to buy cigarettes.
Observed that the stabbing of Chua Hu occurred when he was in the store, and that the victim was positioned near the showcase.

Recounted hearing cries for help and entering the store, where he saw Ramiscal with his knife in front of a table behind which Chua Hu lay wounded.
Claimed that upon questioning, Ramiscal threatened him with the knife, compelling his exit from the store, and later, he witnessed Ramiscal chasing him.
After picking up a piece of wood to defend himself, Chua Chuan struck Ramiscal until he fell.

Provided an account of events from his position near the store while working on railroad shaft bearings.
Observed the movements of Umali and Chua Chuan, confirming the sequence in which Chua Chuan left the warehouse, entered the store, and subsequently pursued and struck Ramiscal.

A declaration by the wounded victim, Chua Hu, recorded by the justice of the peace was not admitted into the record because it was not an ante mortem declaration.
The court relied on the circumstantial and eyewitness testimonies provided by Umali, Chua Chuan, and Barba to establish that the fatal stabbing occurred within the store.

Whether the killing of Chua Hu by Enrique Ramiscal should be classified as murder or homicide.
The determination hinges on whether the necessary qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) could be established beyond reasonable doubt.

The accuracy of the testimonies regarding the location and circumstances of the stabbing.
The admissibility and weight of the victim’s declaration, which was excluded from the record, versus the reliance on the testimonies of witnesses present.

Whether the injury, specifically inflicted on the right underarm, together with the confrontation inside the store and the dialogue exchanged, suffices to prove the existence of treachery.
The need to establish that the victim was completely unaware of the impending attack in order for the crime to be qualified as murder.