G.R. No. 158057 - Toledo vs. People

On September 16, 1995, at around 9:30 p.m., Noe Toledo Y Tamboong (petitioner) was at his house in Barangay Libertad, Odiongan, Romblon when an altercation with his nephew, Ricky F. Guarte (victim), occurred.
Earlier that afternoon, the petitioner had his bolo made by a blacksmith.
The victim and his companions—Lani Famero, Michael Fosana, and Rex Cortez—were drinking gin at the house of Ricky’s parents, the Spouses Manuel and Eliza Guarte, located about five meters from the petitioner’s house.
The petitioner asked the group to stop making noise; they complied, and he went to sleep.
Around 9:00 p.m., after a brief absence, Ricky returned with his companions and rested at the Guarte house. Shortly thereafter, they heard stones being hurled three times against the roof of the Guarte house.
Ricky peeped out, saw the petitioner stoning their house, and confronted him at the latter’s doorstep.
Without warning, the petitioner stabbed Ricky in the abdomen with a bolo, causing Ricky's death despite emergency medical intervention.

Dr. Noralie Fetalvero operated on Ricky, but he died due to massive blood loss.
The Medico-Legal Certificate described a 6 cm irregular-edged stab wound in the left chest with evisceration of the stomach and transverse colon, also perforating the stomach, liver, lung, and diaphragm.
Cause of death was cardiorespiratory arrest due to hypovolemic shock from multiple thoraco-abdominal injuries caused by the stab wound.

The petitioner testified he was awakened by noise, warned Ricky and his friends again, and was subsequently threatened by an already intoxicated Ricky who brandished a balisong and pushed the petitioner’s door.
The petitioner claimed he retrieved his bolo and that it accidentally hit Ricky in the stomach during a struggle at the door.
He voluntarily surrendered to the barangay captain the next day but did not narrate the accident during surrender.
The Regional Trial Court convicted him of homicide with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and imposed an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and 1 day of imprisonment and ordered civil indemnity to the victim's heirs.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified certain aspects.
The petitioner raised on appeal and before the Supreme Court two key defenses:

That he stabbed the victim accidentally under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code (exempting circumstance for lawful acts done with due care causing injury by accident without fault or intention).
That he acted in self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (justifying circumstance), by repelling an unlawful aggression using reasonable means and without having provoked the victim.

The Supreme Court noted the petitioner shifted defenses between accident and self-defense and that the CA ruled against both, affirming the homicide conviction.

Whether the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide despite his claim of accidental stabbing.
Whether the petitioner successfully established the defense of self-defense as a justifying circumstance.
Whether the petitioner can change his theory of defense on appeal and before the Supreme Court, shifting from accident to self-defense.