Title
People vs. Maalat y Fajardo
Case
G.R. No. 109814
Decision Date
Jul 8, 1997
Accused stabbed sleeping victim, claimed self-defense; court ruled murder with treachery, modified penalty due to voluntary surrender.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 109814)

Factual Background

On March 23, 1986, around 1 to 2 p.m., Fernando Maalat, also known as "Boy Tachi," entered the home of Roberto Cruz and fatally stabbed him while he was sleeping on the living room floor. This attack was witnessed by Cruz's son, Berniel, who called for his mother, Imelda, who then rushed to the scene. As Roberto attempted to defend himself, he was pursued by Maalat, who later left the scene but not before Roberto suffered a serious stab wound that led to his death. Maalat was apprehended later on April 29, 1986, after being surrendered to police by his uncle-in-law.

Autopsy Findings

Dr. Marcial Cenido conducted an autopsy on Roberto Cruz and determined that the cause of death was a penetrating stab wound in the left part of his thorax, inflicted by a sharp bladed weapon.

Defense Claims

Maalat contended that he acted in self-defense during the altercation, asserting he was attacked by Cruz, who allegedly strangled him while wielding a knife. Maalat's version implied he had reason to fear for his life due to a prior incident involving Cruz and another individual, Edmund Carayat. These claims were met with skepticism, as they lacked credible supporting evidence.

Trial Court Proceedings

On February 24, 1993, the trial court found Maalat guilty of murder based on the testimony of the witnesses, which the court deemed credible. The court determined that Maalat acted with treachery as he exploited the victim’s unsuspecting state. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay compensatory damages to the victim’s heirs.

Appeal and Self-Defense Argument

In his appeal, Maalat contended that he acted in self-defense and argued for a reduction of charges from murder to homicide, invoking mitigating circumstances such as incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender. However, the appellate court reiterated the requirement that the accused bear the burden of proof to establish self-defense, which includes demonstrating unlawful aggression by the victim.

Court Analysis on Self-Defense

The appellate court elucidated the necessary elements to substantiate a self-defense claim: unlawful aggression, the necessity of the means employed to repel aggression, and lack of provocation by the accused. The court found no evidence of unlawful aggression by Cruz, noting that Maalat's desire to stab Cruz twice after the initial attack undermined his self-defense claim. The testimony provided did not establish an actual, imminent danger to Maalat that justified his lethal response.

On the Issue of Mitigating Circumstances

Even if the altercation had occurred, the defense could not invoke incomplete self-defense due to the absence of unlawful aggression. The alleged struggle seemed unconvincing, and the required criteria to justify such a claim were not met. However, the court acknowledged a mitigating circumstance in voluntary surrender, as Maalat proactively

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.