PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MATEO DALEBA, JR.,APPELLANT.

People versus Daleba

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Mateo Daleba, Junior, for the killing of Renato Angeles, a fellow bus-terminal barker, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. The accused admitted the stabbing but invoked self-defense, so the case turns on two questions every bar candidate must master: who bears the burden once self-defense is pleaded, and when does a killing from behind amount to treachery. It matters because the Court restates the elements of self-defense, the two-fold test for treachery, and the rule on exemplary damages in a single, clean ruling.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 116, with Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation. In a decision dated 28 February 2002, the trial court found him guilty as charged, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay 100,000 pesos in actual damages, 75,000 pesos as indemnity, and 165,000 pesos for loss of earning capacity. The trial court gave credence to the two eyewitnesses, found treachery because the victim was stabbed at the back while walking away, rejected evident premeditation, and treated the accused's flight as evidence of guilt.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which, following its ruling in People versus Mateo, transferred the case to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated 19 April 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but lowered the indemnity to 50,000 pesos. It sustained treachery because there was an interval between the quarrel and the stabbing, and it agreed that the flight should not be taken against the accused because he feared retaliation from the victim's father, a policeman. The case then returned to the Supreme Court on appeal, and the parties manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs.

Facts

Around noon of 18 March 1997, the accused and Renato Angeles, both barkers at a bus terminal in Pasay City, quarreled over the division of their earnings. A certain Edwin Bernarte intervened and pacified them. Renato walked away and headed toward his house near the terminal, while the accused joined Bernarte's group, who had just taken their lunch nearby.

Suddenly, the accused ran after Renato, pulled a knife from his waistline, held Renato's shoulder with his left hand, slashed him on the right forearm, and stabbed him at the back, just above the right side of the waistline. Renato died that evening from the stab wound.

The accused went to his home province in Camarines Sur and was arrested four years after the stabbing. At trial, he claimed self-defense: that Renato suddenly grabbed his neck, dragged him to the back of the terminal, and boxed him in the face while holding a knife, and that he grabbed a knife from a nearby table and stabbed Renato after freeing himself. The trial court found this account uncorroborated and unconvincing against the two eyewitnesses.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused successfully discharged the burden of proving self-defense.
• Whether or not treachery qualified the killing of Renato Angeles.
• Whether or not the accused's flight should be taken against him as evidence of guilt.
• Whether or not the accused is further liable for exemplary damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines and penalizes murder, the crime charged against the accused:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

The charge of murder qualified by treachery rests on this provision, and the Court's affirmance of the conviction turns on whether treachery attended the killing.

Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery as a qualifying circumstance:

Article 14. Aggravating Circumstances. The following are aggravating circumstances: 16. That the act be committed with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

The Court quotes this definition to test whether the manner of the stabbing insured its execution without risk to the offender from any defense the victim might make.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that by invoking self-defense the accused effectively admitted committing the acts that caused Renato's death, and that he bore the burden of proving the justifying circumstances. The Court sustained the lower courts' finding that he failed to discharge that burden, because he did not prove the elements of self-defense: 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. His uncorroborated version strained credulity, for a daylight attack inside a crowded terminal would have drawn attention, and he never explained why no one came to his rescue. The two eyewitnesses, by contrast, dovetailed on how he ran up and stabbed the victim from behind.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery qualified the killing. It quoted the definition and laid down the test:

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 that the offended party might make.

The circumstance is appreciated when the victim was not in a position to defend himself and the offender consciously adopted the form of attack he employed. Here, Renato was walking away with no inkling of what would befall him when the accused stealthily came up behind him, held his shoulder, slashed his forearm, and stabbed him above the waistline. The Court noted that the physician's statement that the forearm wound may be considered a defense wound was ambivalent, and the sketch showed the wound at the back of the forearm. It also cited its earlier ruling that treachery qualified the stabbing from behind of a victim who, minutes earlier, had quarreled with the assailant.

On the third issue, the Court found merit in the accused's claim, as the Court of Appeals had, that his flight should not be taken against him because he feared retaliation from the victim's policeman father.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the accused must further pay the heirs exemplary damages of 25,000 pesos.

Doctrine

• When an accused pleads self-defense, he thereby admits the killing and bears the burden of proving the justifying circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. The elements are unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defender.
• Treachery under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the means, methods, or forms of execution tend directly and specially to insure the crime without risk to the offender from any defense the victim might make. It is appreciated when the victim was in no position to defend himself and the offender consciously adopted the form of attack.
• A stabbing from behind of a victim who was walking away, minutes after a quarrel, constitutes treachery, because the quarrel does not by itself put the victim on guard against a stealthy attack.
• Flight is not always evidence of guilt; it may be attributed to a fear of retaliation rather than consciousness of guilt.
• Exemplary damages of 25,000 pesos may be awarded in murder cases consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting Mateo Daleba, Junior, of Murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the modification that he is further ordered to pay 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

Memorize the line that self-defense, once pleaded, shifts the burden to the accused, and that treachery is judged by whether the victim could defend himself and whether the offender consciously chose the method of attack. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof in self-defense and the appreciation of treachery in a killing from behind after a quarrel.