**Facts:**
1. **Incident Occurrence**: On March 19, 2010, in Hamtic, Antique, Rezor and Resurrecion Manzano allegedly attacked Lucio Silava at around 9:00 p.m. The brothers were accused of conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another.
2. **Initial Event**: At the time of the incident, Lucio and his wife Victoria were inside their store. The accused called out to buy cigarettes.
3. **Sequence of Attack**: Rezor entered the store and approached Lucio who was having dinner. Resurrecion initially stayed outside but followed in after Victoria informed him of a shortage in cigarette stock. Victoria then heard Lucio asking, “What wrong have I committed?”. She witnessed Rezor and Resurrecion stabbing Lucio.
4. **Post-Attack Actions**: Lucio managed to run out, only to be caught and stabbed further by the Manzano brothers. Lucio died due to multiple stab wounds, as confirmed by Dr. Ma. Eva Pacificador.
5. **Procedural Background**: Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed self-defense. The trials involved witness testimonies (Victoria, Dr. Pacificador, SPO2 Javier, Atty. Sy, and Luisa Monteclaro).
**Issues:**
1. **Credibility of Victoria Silava’s Testimony**: Was Victoria’s testimony inconsistent and improbable?
2. **Appreciation of Self-Defense**: Should incomplete self-defense be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance?
3. **Application of Abuse of Superior Strength**: Was the killing attended by abuse of superior strength?
4. **Voluntary Surrender as Mitigating Circumstance**: Did the accused voluntarily surrender making it a mitigating circumstance?
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Credibility of Witness**: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Victoria’s credibility. Despite minor inconsistencies, her testimony was clear, consistent on key details, and corroborated by physical evidence.
2. **Self-Defense Claim**: The Court determined that the claim of self-defense was not corroborated by established facts. There was no unlawful aggression from Lucio as the evidence showed the attack began in Lucio’s store and continued until he was incapacitated.
3. **Abuse of Superior Strength**: The Court found that the accused-appellant and Resurrecion Manzano took advantage of superior numbers and strength. The manner of the attack and sustained injuries indicated this aggravating circumstance.
4. **Voluntary Surrender**: The Court determined that the accused did not voluntarily surrender. His capture was facilitated by his brother contacting the police, depriving the surrender of the requisite spontaneity.
**Doctrine:**
1. **Credibility of Witnesses**: Minor inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony do not necessarily impeach their credibility, especially if the core testimony remains consistent and credible.
2. **Unlawful Aggression**: Unlawful aggression must be proven as real and imminent to substantiate a self-defense claim. Without it, there can be no complete or incomplete self-defense.
3. **Abuse of Superior Strength and Treachery**: Any of these factors qualify a killing to murder, requiring the attacker to have ensured their safety through an unsuspecting and unarmed victim’s inability to retaliate.
4. **Voluntary Surrender**: For this to be considered mitigating, it must be spontaneous, uninfluenced by the inevitability of arrest.
**Class Notes:**
– **Self-Defense (Art. 11, RPC)**: Elements are unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation.
– **Murder (Art. 248, RPC)**: Includes qualifying circumstances like treachery and abuse of superior strength.
– **Voluntary Surrender**: Must occur spontaneously by the accused to authorities without notification or imminent arrest.
**Historical Background:**
The case exemplifies the intricate examination of witness credibility, evidential support for self-defense claims, and the contextual application of qualifying circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength) in murder cases. This decision echoed the established legal principles in evaluating the totality of evidence and affirmed the procedural rigor in ensuring justice amidst claims of mitigating circumstances.
Leave a Reply