G.R. No. 118921-22 - Austria vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 118921-22)

Procedural History

An Information charging murder (alleging treachery and evident premeditation) was filed against Ernesto Austria and Antonio Dato before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Valenzuela. The RTC convicted both accused of homicide (not murder), imposing an indeterminate sentence (initially described only by duration) and ordering each to indemnify the victim’s heirs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and increased the indemnity to P50,000.00. The appellate judgment and the denial of reconsideration were reviewed further, culminating in the present disposition where the Supreme Court affirmed guilt but modified the indeterminate sentence and addressed sentencing nomenclature and mitigating/aggravating factors.

Core Facts of the Altercation

On the night of 16 August 1976, Emilio Narral was summoned to the vicinity of Antonio Dato’s store to discuss a dispute over survey payment receipts. A group that included the accused was present. A confrontation ensued; witnesses heard shouting. The victim was found stabbed and later died. Eyewitness and forensic accounts describe a sequence in which Emilio was chased, restrained, struck on the head, stabbed twice in the neck, staggered and fell multiple times before collapsing, and thereafter the assailants departed.

Eyewitness Testimony (Alberto de los Reyes)

Alberto de los Reyes testified that he heard a remark (“You betrayed me”), looked out his window, and observed Emilio being chased by Antonio Dato, Tino Codapas, and Ernesto Austria toward the witness’s house. He testified that Antonio caught and held Emilio’s right arm with both hands; Codapas struck Emilio on the back of the head with a bamboo, causing him to fall; Antonio lifted Emilio; while Emilio was restrained Ernesto approached holding a knife and stabbed Emilio twice in the neck; the assailants then fled; subsequently, Emilio staggered and fell several times near the house of Efren Viray. De los Reyes also recounted that Austria later threatened him and his mother to keep silent.

Defendants’ Account and Claim of Self‑Defense

Ernesto Austria testified that the group had been conversing peacefully when an apparently drunk Emilio suddenly pulled out a knife and challenged the group. Austria claimed he was attacked by Emilio, that a struggle for the knife ensued, and that Austria accidentally stabbed Emilio’s neck in the course of grappling for the weapon. Antonio Dato disavowed participation in the killing. The defense advanced self‑defense and accident in the course of a struggle for the blade as central explanations.

Autopsy and Forensic Findings

The necropsy documented multiple abrasions, contusions, lacerations, and stab wounds. Two stab wounds of the neck were specifically described: one penetrating the submandibular region and coursing intramuscularly; the other at the anterior neck cutting the common carotid and jugular vessels and communicating with an additional posterior wound. There was meningeal subarachnoid hemorrhage, paleness of brain and visceral organs, and stomach contents showing recent food. Cause of death: profuse hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds of the neck.

Trial Court Findings and Legal Characterization

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide aggravated by abuse of superior strength (rather than murder). The trial court rejected treachery and evident premeditation given the public setting and nature of the confrontation; it found no unlawful aggression by the victim and thus dismissed the self‑defense claim, basing that on the nature, number and location of the injuries and the eyewitness account. The trial court also found conspiracy among the participants and credited provocation by the victim as a mitigating circumstance. The RTC’s written judgment, however, improperly specified the penalty by duration without the proper nomenclature required under the Revised Penal Code.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction of the accused for homicide, increased the indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim to P50,000.00, and imposed costs against the accused‑appellants. The court evaluated the credibility of the eyewitness and the circumstances of the confrontation and upheld the RTC’s factual findings.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Self‑Defense Elements

The Supreme Court reiterated the tripartite elements of self‑defense: (a) unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defender. The Court emphasized that unlawful aggression is the primary element; its absence precludes self‑defense altogether. Applying these standards to the record, the Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that unlawful aggression by the victim was not established. The Court found the defense’s narrative (that Emilio suddenly attacked multiple group members with a knife and was able to reach Austria after attacking others) implausible and inconsistent with ordinary human behavior and the testimony of other witnesses.

Evaluation of Credibility and Ocular Inspection

The Supreme Court sustained the trial court’s credibility determinations, particularly the testimony of de los Reyes, noting it was vivid, detailed, and withstood cross‑examination. The RTC’s ocular inspection reinforced the conclusion that the witness’s vantage point permitted observation of the struggle; lighting and proximity made visibility credible. Attempts by petitioner to discredit de los Reyes by alleging ill motive were found insufficient and unsubstantiated. The Court affirmed that credibility assessments by the trial court are entitled to high respect absent arbitrariness.

Exceeding the Reasonable Necessity of Means Employed

Even if unlawful aggression were assumed, the Court held that Austria exceeded the limits of necessary force. The severity, number and location of the neck stab wounds, together with the forensic conclusion of severed carotid and jugular vessels producing fatal hemorrhage, demonstrated disproportionate force relative t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 118921-22)

Procedural History

An Information for murder was filed against Ernesto Austria and Antonio Dato in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela for the killing of Emilio Narral, allegedly with treachery and evident premeditation.
After trial, the RTC convicted both accused of homicide (not murder) and imposed upon each an indeterminate penalty described as twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days as maximum (2 counts each), ordered indemnity to the heirs of Emilio Narral of P30,000.00 each, and awarded costs. (The decision noted that the penalty nomenclature used by the trial court was erroneous and should have specified the proper penal denomination.)
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and raised the indemnity to the heirs to P50,000.00, with costs against the accused-appellants. The CA decision was rendered on 23 September 1994.
A motion for reconsideration was denied on 8 December 1994.
Petitioner filed the present appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued its decision affirming the conviction, affirming the indemnity of P50,000.00 and costs, but modifying and properly designating the indeterminate prison term under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Costs were ordered de oficio.

Facts of the Case — Parties, Place and Time

Date and time: Around 11:00 p.m., 16 August 1976.
Location: 14 Coloong II, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and Antonio Dato’s store nearby.
Parties present or involved: Victim Emilio Narral and his wife Flora; Herman Nario; Ernesto Austria (petitioner); Antonio Dato (co-accused); Tino Codapas; Rogelio de Joya; Jaime Futol; Alberto de los Reyes (eyewitness, 17 years old); other unnamed companions of the accused; Efren Viray (owner of a house near where the victim staggered).
Context: A dispute had arisen arising from Emilio’s demand from Ernesto for receipts of payments for a land survey. Ernesto was president and Antonio vice-president of their neighborhood association.

Sequence of Events (Witness Accounts and Observations)

Herman Nario informed Emilio and his wife Flora that Emilio was being summoned by Ernesto Austria and Antonio Dato to discuss their misunderstanding over the receipts.
Emilio, Herman and then Flora proceeded to Antonio’s store where Ernesto, Antonio, Tino Codapas, Rogelio de Joya and Jaime Futol were gathered.
Flora observed the group; perceiving the conversation to be cordial she returned home. About ten minutes later she heard shouts from the direction of the store. She went out and saw her husband lying on the ground. Emilio, in a hoarse voice, told her he had been stabbed by Ernesto Austria.
Alberto de los Reyes, reading komiks near his window, heard a cry “Tinraydor ninyo ako!” from the direction of Antonio’s store, looked out and observed the events described below.
According to Alberto de los Reyes’s account, Emilio was being chased by Ernesto, Antonio and Tino Codapas; Antonio caught up with Emilio and held his right arm with both hands; Tino Codapas struck Emilio on the head with a piece of bamboo causing him to fall; Antonio lifted Emilio and as Emilio lay prostrate Ernesto stabbed him twice in the neck; the assailants then fled; Ernesto passed by Alberto’s house and warned him and his mother not to say anything or they would meet a similar fate.
Alberto de los Reyes described Emilio falling, standing, staggering, again falling by the house of Efren Viray and then standing and falling again; Alberto’s testimony was detailed and survived cross-examination.
The trial court conducted an ocular inspection of the scene and recorded distances and lines of sight demonstrating that the place of the stabbing could be seen from Alberto’s window under conditions at the time, taking into account illumination from the store and nearby houses.

Defendant’s Version (Ernesto Austria’s Testimony)

Austria testified that he and companions (Codapas, de Joya, Futol and others) were gathered in front of Antonio’s store, and Antonio was assisting his wife in tending the store.
The group was discussing assistance to Rey Dionido who had eloped with a certain Minda.
Austria stated that Emilio arrived noticeably drunk, produced a knife from his waist, and challenged anyone to fight; when no one accepted, Emilio lunged at Antonio who parried the blow; Emilio then allegedly faced Austria and thrust the knife at him.
Austria testified that he and Emilio grappled for possession of the knife and that in the struggle he accidentally hit Emilio’s neck with the knife ("an asundota"), causing Emilio to fall; Austria claimed the subsequent wounds were accidental in the course of the struggle and asserted the defense of self-defense.
Antonio Dato disavowed any participation in killing Emilio.

Medical Evidence (Necropsy Report)

The Necropsy Report documented numerous injuries:
- Abrasions: forehead supra-orbital region (right side) 5.5 x 2.0 cm; face molar region (right) 3.0 x 2.0 cm; face oral region along upper lip 4.5 x 3.0 cm; back supra-scapular regions left and right 6.0 x 4.0 cm and 5.0 x 4.0 cm respectively.
- Contusion: right posterior wrist 14.0 x 2.5 cm.
- Lacerations: scalp fronto-parietal right 8.0 cm; parieto-occipital left 6.0 cm; occipital left 2.5 cm; occipital posterior two in number 1.5 cm and 1.0 cm.
- Stab wounds: (1) Elliptical 3.0 cm long in submandibular region right side, directed backward, upward and laterally, penetrating skin and soft tissues, taking intramuscular course to angle of mandible left side medially, approximate depth 9.0 cm; (2) Elliptical 5.2 cm long in anterior neck left side at level of Adam’s apple, directed backward, upward and laterally, penetrating and cutting common carotid artery and jugular vessels, communicating posteriorly with another wound 2.5 cm long 8.0 cm from posterior median line.
- Hemorrhage: meningeal sub-arachnoidal bi-temporal; brain and other visceral organs pale.
- Stomach: full of undigested rice and other food particles.
- Cause of death: