Case Summary (G.R. No. 124392)
Factual Background
On the evening of July 15, 1995 at Barangay Pogo, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, Federico Abrazaldo became involved in a disturbance after an earlier incident in which he, allegedly intoxicated, attempted to hack his uncle, Bernabe Quinto, and sustained a forehead injury. Members of the barangay tanod, including Delfin Guban, responded to the disturbance. Witnesses described a confrontation in which Abrazaldo and Guban shouted at each other, grappled face to face, and during the struggle Abrazaldo produced a knife and stabbed Guban in the abdomen. Guban was taken to Gov. Teofilo Sison Memorial Hospital, operated upon by Dr. Alberto Gonzales, and later died. The medico-legal certificate recorded the cause of death as stab wound, epigastrium, with massive hemothorax right. The next day the knife allegedly used was recovered from the house of an aunt of the accused in Salay, Pangasinan.
Prosecution Evidence at Trial
The prosecution presented witnesses including Rosendo Fajardo, SPO1 Ramie Petrache, SPO2 Roberto Fernandez, Dr. Alberto Gonzales and Gregorio Guban. Fajardo testified that he saw Abrazaldo come out of Quinto’s house bleeding from the forehead, heard Abrazaldo threaten his uncle, saw a physical struggle between Abrazaldo and Guban, observed Abrazaldo pull out a knife and stab Guban, and reported that Guban told rescuers, “I was stabbed by Feding Abrazaldo.” Dr. Gonzales testified on the fatal wound. Gregorio Guban, the victim’s father, testified that he paid funeral and hospital expenses.
Defense Evidence and Claim of Self-Defense
Accused-appellant Federico Abrazaldo testified that Guban, allegedly drunk, threatened him, struck him with an iron pipe, pursued him into his house while armed with a knife, and during a struggle the knife accidentally stabbed Guban. He claimed he retrieved the knife to surrender it to authorities. His sister, Marites Abrazaldo, testified contrary to his account, stating that Abrazaldo had been drinking, caused trouble at their compound, attempted to hack their uncle, sustained his forehead wound by bumping an artesian well, and thereafter killed Guban.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment
Upon arraignment Abrazaldo pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits followed. On November 15, 1995 the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan City, rendered judgment finding Abrazaldo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, and sentenced him to death. The trial court found treachery present and also treated nocturnity and the presence of public authorities engaged in duty as aggravating circumstances. The court ordered payment of P50,000.00 as indemnity and P27,000.00 as actual damages, plus costs.
Appellant’s Assignments of Error
In his appeal Abrazaldo assigned that the trial court erred in (one) not appreciating his claim of self-defense, (two) giving undue weight to the alleged recovery of the knife, (three) crediting testimony elicited from his sister, (four) finding treachery without sufficient basis, (five) assuming he took advantage of nighttime to commit the act, and (six) finding the victim was performing his duty so as to constitute an aggravating circumstance.
Appellee’s Contentions
The Solicitor General argued that by pleading self-defense Abrazaldo admitted the killing and therefore must rely on the strength of his own evidence; that his account was contradicted by his sister; and that the aggravating circumstance under paragraph (5), Article 14, Revised Penal Code, was established because Guban, as assistant chief tanod, was on duty. The Solicitor General conceded that treachery and nocturnity were not satisfactorily proved by the prosecution. The prosecution relied on established doctrine that one who pleads self-defense must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was not the unlawful aggressor, that he lacked sufficient provocation, and that he used reasonable means to repel aggression.
Supreme Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Self-Defense
The Court held that Abrazaldo failed to prove self-defense. His testimony was uncorroborated, internally inconsistent and contradicted by his own sister. The Court emphasized that the plea of self-defense cannot be sustained if it is uncorroborated or extremely doubtful. The Court noted that Abrazaldo’s alternate claims of accident and self-defense were mutually inconsistent, that he fled the scene, did not report the incident, and did not surrender the knife, factors inconsistent with a clean conscience and the normal conduct of one justified in the use of force. The Court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations regarding the prosecution eyewitness Fajardo, observing that the trial court had the advantage of observing witnesses and that no compelling circumstances warranted contravention of its credibility findings.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Treachery, Nocturnity, and Public Authority Aggravating Circumstances
The Court found that the trial court erred in concluding that treachery attended the killing because the evidence showed a face-to-face grappling and loud shouting prior to the stabbing, circumstances inconsistent with a surprise attack that would leave the victim without opportunity for defense. The Court held that treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and cannot be presumed. The Court likewise held that nocturnity was not proved as an aggravating circumstance because nighttime must be shown to have facilitated the commission of the crime and to have been purposely sought by the offender; the record showed adequate illumination by a fluorescent lamp. The Court further concluded that the circumstance that the crime occurred where public authorities were engaged in the discharge of their duties was not established. The arrival of barangay tanod was a response to a disturbance at the accused’s compound; no public function was being performed there when the stabbing occurred. The Court also invoked Section 8, Rule 110 to stress that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information and that the new procedure may be applied retroactively in favor of the accused.
Legal Classification and Penalty
Because treachery and the other aggravating circumstances were not established or were not alleged, the Court held that the killing could not be sustained as murder under Article 248 and instead reduced the conviction to homicide under Article 249, Revised Penal Code. With neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances established, the Court imposed the penalty in its medium period, and under the Indeterminate Sentence Law fixed an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of six years and one day of prision mayor and a maximum of fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Damages and Costs
The Court found the trial court’s award of actual
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 124392)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- People of the Philippines prosecuted Federico Abrazaldo @ Peding for murder under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659.
- The case arose from Criminal Case No. 95-01052-D before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan City.
- The RTC rendered its Decision dated November 15, 1995 convicting the accused of murder and imposing the death penalty.
- The judgment was subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court pursuant to the rules in force.
Key Factual Allegations
- The Information alleged that on July 15, 1995 at about 10:00 p.m. in Barangay Pogo, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, the accused, armed with a bolo, stabbed and killed Delfin Guban with intent, by treachery and evident premeditation.
- Prosecution evidence depicted the accused as intoxicated, creating a disturbance, attempting to hack his uncle Bernabe Quinto, and sustaining a forehead wound before the stabbing occurred.
- Eyewitness testimony related that the barangay tanod, including Delfin Guban, responded to the disturbance and that the accused and the victim grappled, whereupon the accused stabbed the victim in the abdomen and fled.
- The victim was transported to Gov. Teofilo Sison Memorial Hospital, was operated on by Dr. Alberto Gonzales, and later died; the medico-legal certificate listed stab wound, epigastrium, and massive right hemothorax as cause of death.
- A knife allegedly used in the stabbing was recovered at the house of the accused’s aunt in Salay, Pangasinan.
- The victim’s father claimed funeral-related expenditures totaling P27,000.00.
- The accused claimed self-defense, testifying that the victim struck him with a pipe, they grappled for a knife, and the knife accidentally wounded the victim.
- The accused’s sister, Marites Abrazaldo, contradicted the accused and testified that he caused trouble, attempted to kill his uncle, and later killed the victim.
Trial Evidence
- The prosecution presented witnesses including Rosendo Fajardo, SPO1 Ramie Petrache, SPO2 Roberto Fernandez, Dr. Alberto Gonzales, and Gregorio Guban.
- Rosendo Fajardo testified as an eyewitness that he heard threats, saw the accused come out bleeding, observed a grappling between the accused and the victim, and saw the accused stab the victim.
- Dr. Alberto Gonzales testified regarding the operation and cause of death reflected in the medico-legal certificate.
- The knife was recovered by Fajardo and SPO2 Roberto Fernandez from the accused’s aunt’s house.
- The defense called the accused and Marites Abrazaldo as witnesses, with the accused asserting self-defense and Marites giving a contradictory account.
Trial Court Findings
- The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659.
- The RTC found treachery and the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed during the performance of public duties and at nighttime.
- The RTC did not find evident premeditation.
- The RTC sentenced the accused to death and ordered indemnity of P50,000.00 and actual damages of P27,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased.
Issues on Appeal
- The accused asserted six assignments of error, including that the trial court erred in not appreciating self-defense, in relying on the recovery of the knife, in accepting testimony from Marites Abrazaldo, in finding treachery, in finding nocturnity as aggravating, and in finding that the victim was performing public duties.
- The Solicitor General contended that the accused, having admitted killing the victim while pleading self-defense, had to rely on the strength of his own evidence and that treachery and nocturnity were not established although the public-duty aggravating circumstance was argued to be present by the prosecution.
Supreme Court Analysis
- The Court reiterated t