Title
People vs. Macaraig y Gonzales
Case
G.R. No. 219848
Decision Date
Jun 7, 2017
Macaraig stabbed Joven Celeste from behind during a dance party, leading to Joven's death. Despite Macaraig's self-defense claim, the Supreme Court affirmed his murder conviction, citing treachery and Joven's dying declaration.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 219848)

Charges and Sentencing

The RTC, on October 16, 2013, found Macaraig guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and imposing civil liabilities that included PhP75,000 as civil indemnity, PhP50,000 as moral damages, PhP16,750 as actual damages, and PhP30,000 as exemplary damages. The CA affirmed this ruling on November 20, 2014.

The Prosecution’s Version

The prosecution's case was built upon the testimony of several witnesses, including Francis Losano, who recounted the events leading to Joven's stabbing. He and Joven had attended a dance party, and while returning home, they were followed by Macaraig. Witnesses testified that Macaraig approached Joven from behind, put his arm around him, and stabbed him with a bladed weapon. Joven, despite suffering critical injuries, identified Macaraig to a friend before succumbing to his wounds.

The Defense's Argument

Macaraig's defense presented him as the sole witness, asserting that he was attacked by unnamed assailants, including Joven and another person who allegedly attempted to stab him. He denied responsibility for Joven's wounds, claiming they were inflicted by someone else in the scuffle.

RTC Ruling

The RTC resolved the conflicting testimonies in favor of the prosecution, determining that the evidence overwhelmingly indicated Macaraig’s guilt in the crime of murder as he exhibited treachery—an essential element that enhanced the gravity of his actions.

CA Ruling

The CA upheld the RTC’s findings, reinforcing the conclusion that Macaraig's intent was clear and that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated his culpability beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court's review centered on the validity of Macaraig's self-defense claim. It emphasized the burden of proof lies on anyone claiming self-defense to establish the presence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed for defense, and lack of provocation on their part. The Court found Macaraig’s assertions of self-defense unsubstantiated, particularly due to contradictions and vagueness in his testimony that failed to convincingly demonstrate unlawful aggression from J

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.