PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REGOBERTO YBEAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Ybeas versus People

The Case

This is the appeal of Regoberto Ybeas, whom the trial court convicted of murder for the stabbing death of Enrique Villarojo during a disturbance at a volleyball game in a barrio of Amlan, Negros Oriental. The accused admitted that he inflicted the fatal wounds but claimed self-defense, insisting that the deceased was the unlawful aggressor. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one place the whole architecture of self-defense as a justifying circumstance: the burden of proof that shifts to the accused upon his admission, the three elements he must establish, the requirement of clear and convincing evidence, and the separate question of treachery as a qualifying circumstance that raises the killing from homicide to murder.

Procedural History

After the killing, a criminal complaint for murder was filed with the Municipal Circuit Court of San Jose, Amlan and Pamplona, which conducted the preliminary investigation and forwarded the records to the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, now the Regional Trial Court. The provincial fiscal then filed an Information for murder against Ybeas and one Alberto Quisel. Ybeas pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. Trial on the merits ran from January 1985 to February 1988. The trial court rendered judgment in March 1991, convicting Ybeas of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and convicting Quisel of homicide. Because only Ybeas appeared on the date set for promulgation, the decision was promulgated only as to him. Ybeas filed a notice of appeal, the trial court gave due course, and the records were elevated to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in September 1992.

Facts

On the afternoon of 5 September 1981, a volleyball game was being played at the place of Exequiel Ybeas in Sitio Pinoso-an, Barangay Silab, Amlan, Negros Oriental, with Vicente Orillan as umpire. A heated argument arose when Alberto Quisel angrily chided the umpire for favoring one of the teams, and Quisel chased the umpire with a bolo but failed to catch him. When Quisel returned to the court, Pablo Ybañez asked him why he had chased the umpire. Enrique Villarojo then came near and advised the two not to bring the incident to greater proportions, but Ybañez brushed him aside and told him not to interfere.

As Villarojo stepped back, the accused, Regoberto Ybeas, suddenly stabbed him in the back with a small knife. Villarojo slumped to the ground, the knife still sticking in his back, and was caught by his daughter Rufina. Alberto Quisel then approached and stabbed the victim in the stomach despite the daughter's plea. Francisco Bigtasin, seeing his uncle being assaulted, stabbed Ybeas in the side of the abdomen, then ran home, later surrendered to a policeman, and executed an affidavit admitting the stabbing. Villarojo died on the spot. The medical officer found two stab wounds, one in the epigastric region and one at the back hitting the lungs, and the widths of the wounds indicated that two instruments were used.

The accused claimed self-defense. He testified that Villarojo pulled out a hunting knife and thrust it at him, hitting his right hip; that he grabbed the hand holding the knife and redirected it into Villarojo's own abdomen; and that he then pulled the knife out and thrust it at Villarojo's neck. He was operated on and confined in a hospital for nineteen days.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the accused's claim that the deceased was the unlawful aggressor and that the accused acted in self-defense.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the qualifying circumstance of treachery despite the heated exchange of words between the accused and the deceased immediately before the stabbing.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 16 of Article 14 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 provision the Court applies to qualify the killing as murder, because the attack was sudden and from behind, leaving the victim no chance to defend himself.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes murder, and the Court refers to its penalty:

The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.

This fixes the range from which the Court, finding no modifying circumstance, selects the medium period, which under prevailing doctrine is reclusion perpetua.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled against the accused. By claiming self-defense, he admitted inflicting the fatal wounds, and the burden shifted to him to prove that the killing was justified. He had to rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's, because even a weak prosecution case would not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility. Self-defense is a weak defense that, like alibi, can easily be concocted, so its three elements must be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. The accused failed to discharge that burden. His version was incredible and inconsistent with the nature and locations of the injuries: the medical findings showed a wound at the back, not at the neck or breast as he and his witness claimed, and the differing widths of the wounds showed that two instruments were used. The testimony of Francisco Bigtasin, who admitted inflicting the injury on the accused, exposed the claim that the deceased was the aggressor as a lie. The Court thus affirmed the finding that the unarmed victim, on a mission of peace, was deliberately, suddenly, and unexpectedly stabbed in the back.

On the second issue, the Court likewise ruled against the accused. There was no evidence that the victim knew the accused was armed, and no prior act or conduct of the accused put the victim on notice of any impending attack. The victim was totally unaware of the attack and, with his back towards the accused, was in no position to defend himself. The accused consciously adopted this method of attack to insure the accomplishment of his criminal purpose without risk to himself arising from any defense the victim might offer. The position he took, the deliberate choice of the spot where the deadly weapon landed, and the direction of the thrust were unequivocal manifestations of intent to inflict a fatal injury. All the elements of treachery were therefore present, and treachery qualified the killing as murder.

Doctrine

When an accused admits inflicting the fatal wounds and invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of proving the justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's. The three elements of self-defense are unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code qualifies a killing as murder when the offender employs means, methods, or forms of execution that tend directly and specially to insure the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make, as where the victim is stabbed suddenly from behind while unaware of the attack. Where treachery qualifies the killing as murder under Article 248 and there are no modifying circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Regoberto Ybeas for murder and his sentence of reclusion perpetua, modifying only the civil indemnity for the death of Enrique Villarojo by raising it from 30,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: self-defense is a weak defense that must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and the accused who admits the killing can no longer lean on the weakness of the prosecution's case. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof in self-defense and the presence of treachery where the victim is stabbed suddenly from behind.