Title
People vs. Ganut
Case
G.R. No. L-34517
Decision Date
Nov 2, 1982
Ganut hacked Malaqui 25 times, claiming self-defense; Court rejected defense, ruled homicide due to lack of treachery, imposed 10-14 years.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-6589)

Facts of the Case

On the night of the incident, Ganut, alongside several individuals including Malaqui, was engaged in butchering a pig for the wedding celebration. Ganut attacked Malaqui with a bolo, inflicting a total of 25 wounds—eight of which were delivered to the front and seventeen to the back of Malaqui, ultimately leading to the latter's death. The autopsy indicated that the cause of death was hemothorax, a result of severe chopping injuries.

Prosecution's Version

The prosecution recounted that after an interaction regarding the preparation of food (specifically a dish called "kilawen"), Ganut suddenly assaulted Malaqui from behind. Witnesses testified to the violent nature of the attack, with Dr. Jovencio Castro confirming the design and severity of the wounds sustained by the victim.

Defense Argument

In his appeal, Ganut asserted self-defense. He claimed that he was attacked first by Malaqui, who purportedly provoked him prior to the assault. Ganut described a scenario where he attempted to pacify the deceased but ended up retaliating after being hacked himself. The defense relied on the narrative that the deceased initiated aggression.

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court scrutinized Ganut's claim of self-defense and rendered it implausible given the extensive number and nature of the wounds suffered by Malaqui. The court found inconsistency in Ganut’s explanation, particularly regarding the positioning from which he claimed to have defended himself. The court concluded that Ganut's actions were premeditated and characterized by treachery because the victim had no opportunity to defend himself against Ganut’s sudden and brutal assault.

Self-Defense and the Court's Ruling

The appellate court supported the trial court's conclusion concerning the implausibility of self-defense due to the overwhelming evidence of the victim's injuries. It reiterated that for self-defense to be valid, there must be clear evidence of unlawful aggression from the victim, which the court found absent in this case. The nature of the attack and the excessive force used rendered self-defense inapplicable.

Qualifying Circumstances and Verdict

The Court examined the presence of treachery, concluding that the method of attack used by Ganut created a situation where Malaqui was unable to defend himself, qualifying the act as murder. However, the evidence did not sufficiently support additional aggravating circumstances like evident cruelty.

Modif

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.