PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. PERCIVAL GONZA Y BORRAL, APPELLANT.

People versus Gonza

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Percival Gonza, a criminal appeal from a conviction for killing Virgilio Mortega at a wake in Magallanes, Sorsogon. The accused admitted the stabbing but claimed self-defense, so the case turns on two questions every bar candidate must master: who bears the burden once self-defense is invoked, and when does a sudden stabbing amount to murder rather than homicide? The Supreme Court's answer gives us a clean statement of the requisites of self-defense, the burden of evidence that shifts to the accused, and the strict proof required before treachery may qualify a killing.

Procedural History

An Information charged Percival Gonza with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Bulan, Sorsogon, Branch 65. On arraignment, assisted by a counsel de oficio, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as actual damages, 50,000 pesos as indemnity, and 50,000 pesos as moral damages. Gonza appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's reliance on the eyewitnesses and its disregard of his self-defense, and in the alternative its failure to convict him only of homicide.

Facts

On the evening of August 16, 1996, Percival Gonza and Virgilio Mortega were among the condolers at the wake of Ramil Mortega in Barangay Caditaan, Magallanes, Sorsogon. Gonza was the victim's third cousin and the brother-in-law of Catalino Mortega, in whose house the wake was held. The condolers drank and sang in a makeshift tent outside the house and later moved to the kitchen of a coffee shop, where Catalino and his sister Edina Dimaano served coffee. Virgilio continued singing.

At around eleven in the evening, Gonza decided to go home and bade Catalino goodnight. As Gonza stepped out, Virgilio followed him. Suddenly Gonza turned around and repeatedly stabbed Virgilio with a fan knife. Virgilio backed away toward the entrance, but Gonza pursued him and finished him with more stabs. Virgilio fell and died shortly thereafter. Catalino grappled with Gonza, and with the help of others the knife was wrested away. Gonza was taken into custody by the barangay captain.

An autopsy the next morning showed multiple stab wounds, the most fatal being the wound on the thorax, which the doctor said could have been inflicted after the victim had fallen. Gonza admitted the stabbing but claimed self-defense: that the drunk Virgilio had uttered invectives, punched him on the left eye, and boxed him again, prompting him to grab an open fan knife from the kitchen table and stab the victim once. He submitted to medical examination three days later, which showed a contusion on his left eye.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the accused's claim of self-defense and in relying on the prosecution eyewitnesses.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying it as murder rather than homicide.
• Whether or not the awards of damages were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 14, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This is the qualifying circumstance the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and its absence reduces the crime to homicide.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes homicide with reclusion temporal, the penalty the Court ultimately imposed.

Article 64, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code governs the effect of a mitigating circumstance:

When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

Read with the rule on mitigating circumstances, it allowed the Court to fix the maximum of the indeterminate penalty at the minimum period of reclusion temporal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that self-defense cannot prosper. Where an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life, and he must rely on his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's. He must prove with clear and convincing evidence the three requisites: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The most decisive is unlawful aggression. Gonza's testimony was uncorroborated despite the presence of other witnesses, his bare assertions could not prevail over the positive identification by Catalino and Edina, and the mere fact that he suffered an injury did not prove unlawful aggression, especially since he was examined three days later. Most tellingly, the multiple stab wounds belied his claim of a single stab and showed a determined effort to kill.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that treachery was not proved. Treachery is not presumed and must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. Two conditions must concur: the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and that the said means were deliberately or consciously adopted. The Court held:

To establish treachery, the evidence must show that the offender made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend himself.

The mode of attack must be planned and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. Here, the evidence negated any reflection on the means, method, and form of killing; the attack was sudden and the victim's helpless position was not shown to be deliberately sought. The crime was therefore only homicide.

On the third issue, the Court sustained the civil indemnity of 50,000 pesos and moral damages of 50,000 pesos, but reduced actual damages to temperate damages of 25,000 pesos because only 7,450 pesos was properly receipted. It denied lost earnings because the widow's testimony on income was self-serving and unproven.

Doctrine

• When the accused admits the killing and invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him; he must prove all three requisites by clear and convincing evidence and cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence.
• Unlawful aggression is the most decisive requisite; absent proof of a prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, self-defense, complete or incomplete, cannot prosper.
• Treachery must be proved as clearly as the crime itself; the suddenness of an attack does not by itself establish it, because the mode of attack must be consciously and deliberately adopted and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.
• An unproved qualifying circumstance reduces murder to homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification, finding Gonza guilty only of homicide and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as maximum, with civil indemnity of 50,000 pesos, moral damages of 50,000 pesos, and temperate damages of 25,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: treachery cannot be inferred from the mere suddenness of an attack; the mode of attack must be consciously and deliberately adopted. Examiners use this case to test the shifting burden in self-defense and the distinction between murder qualified by treachery and plain homicide.