G.R. No. L-66620 - Flores vs. Mallare-Phillipps

On September 6, 2008, at approximately 11:30 p.m. in Brgy. 05, Llorente, Eastern Samar, an altercation occurred between Elmer T. Rebato and the victim, Fredelindo G. Remo.
The case involved multiple individuals: Rebato, his co-accused Gerwin Gunda (who remained at large), and witnesses including Edgar Carpio, Melchor Villaflor, Jimmy Cabanatan, and Jomar Cabanatan.

Rebato, while sitting outside Joyan’s Bakeshop and listening to music, was allegedly attacked by Remo and his companions using water pump pipes.
The defense contends that Rebato sustained injuries on his right elbow, left hand, and back after being beaten intermittently by Remo along with siblings Jimmy and Jomar.
During the assault, a member of Remo’s group reportedly said, “Let us kill him.”
In an effort to escape, Rebato ran inside the bakeshop, where Gerwin Gunda handed him a small bolo known locally as a “dipang,” which he subsequently used to stab Remo.
Post-stabbing, Rebato admitted to the stabbing when questioned by the police and surrendered the weapon he used.

The prosecution contended that Rebato approached and attacked Remo from behind as the latter was walking home.
According to this account, Rebato stabbed Remo twice—first, in the right portion of the stomach and then in the left chest—causing fatal injuries.
The witnesses, including Jimmy (positioned 10–15 meters away) and Jomar (8–10 meters away), confirmed that Remo was an innocent passer-by when he was suddenly attacked.
Medical findings indicated that Remo sustained a 2-centimeter stab wound below the right nipple at the midclavicular line and another 1.5-centimeter wound in the left quadrant of the abdomen; both were penetrating and led to hypovolemic shock.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) conducted a reverse trial favoring the defense’s narrative by allowing the defense to first present its evidence.
Despite Rebato’s allegation of self-defense, the RTC ruled that the justifying circumstance was not applicable due to the lack of an indispensable element—unlawful aggression by the victim.
Testimonies, including those of witness accounts and the medico-legal report by Dr. Myra Cecilia D. Grata, were given significant weight; her observations undermined Rebato’s claims by suggesting that the injuries could have resulted from another incident.
Ultimately, the RTC found Rebato guilty of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, citing the qualifying circumstance of treachery, although it did not find evident premeditation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) partially modified and affirmed the RTC’s Decision, maintaining Rebato’s conviction and ordering the imposition of reclusion perpetua along with civil indemnity, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages.
The CA reiterated that the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of murder and treachery despite conflicting accounts of self-defense.
The accused-appellant’s failure to question or object to the insufficiency in the information regarding the qualifying circumstance of treachery led to a waiver of his right to raise such issues later.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant Elmer T. Rebato for the crime of Murder.

Whether the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, were properly accorded deference in view of the discrepancies between the defense’s and prosecution’s accounts.
Whether Rebato’s defense of self-defense was credible given the conflicting testimonies and the medico-legal findings, particularly regarding the absence of unlawful aggression by the victim.
Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly established, despite contentions regarding the alleged absence of explanation for treachery in the Information.
Whether the failure of the accused to object to deficiencies in the Information constituted a waiver of his right to challenge its sufficiency.