People v. Vega

 

People v. Vega

G.R. No. 216018

March 27, 2019

 

FACTS:

RTC and CA convicted Don Vega Ramil for the crime of murder under Art. 248 of the RPC. On January 18, 2009 at about 11:30pm, Manuel Padilla Isip, victim, was at Arellano St., Malate, Mla. because his friend Ogad Venus' birthday. Among them was Aldrin Fernandez, the witness. About 15 of them were drinking and spotted Vega, sniffing rugby from a bottle. He disturbed them and while having commotions and while the victim is on his back, the accused held the victim's neck and stabbed him with a knife in his chest four times.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in convicting the accused.

 

HELD:

                No. The accused failed to prove self-defense. An accused who pleads self-defense admits to the commission of the crime charged He has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the killing was attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. Aside from Don's self-serving statement that it was Manuel who punched and attacked him, not one of the persons present at the incident corroborated his account. Neither did he present any medical record showing that he sustained any injuries as the result of the attack by Manuel. Manuel was unarmed and had his back turned while Don used a bladed weapon to "repel the attack" and stab Manuel repeatedly. From the statements of Fernandez and Calixto, accused- appellant wrapped his arm around the neck of Manuel and stabbed the victim the moment he turned his back from the accused-appellant. Evidently, the attack is so sudden and unexpected preventing any chance from the victim to defend himself. In other words, accused-appellant's position in attacking Manuel rendered the victim defenseless and unable to retaliate. In order to appreciate treachery, both elements must be present.  It is not enough that the attack was "sudden," "unexpected," and "without any warning or provocation." There must also be a showing that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution, without risk to himself. as testified to by the witnesses of the prosecution, the incident happened during a drinking spree where there were more or less 15 people, excluding Don and Manuel. If Don wanted to make certain that no risk would come to him, he could have chosen another time and place to stab Manuel. In another case, the Court held that when aid was easily available to the victim, such as when the attendant circumstances show that there were several eyewitnesses to the incident, no treachery could be appreciated because if the accused indeed consciously adopted means to insure the facilitation of the crime, he could have chosen another place or time. Wherefore, Don Vega is guilty of homicide.