First Division: 3republtr of Tbe Btlippineg T!:ourt
First Division: 3republtr of Tbe Btlippineg T!:ourt
~upreme <t!:ourt
:ffl!lantla
FIRST DIVISION
PERALTA, C. J, Chairperson,
- versus - CAGUIOA,
CARANDANG,
ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN, JJ.
EDGAR GUARIN y VELOSO a.k.a.
"Banong,"
Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PERALTA, C.J.:
This is an appeal from the August 30, 2018 Decision I of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09494 which affirmed with
modification the May 31, 2017 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 69, Lingayen, Pangasinan.
The Facts
d
1
Rollo, pp. 3-17. Penned by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza, with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Elihu A. Ybanez and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
2
CA rollo, pp. 50-59. Penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr. ( /I
Decision -2- G.R. No. 245306
him several times with a sharp bladed instrument while, he, the hapless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim, was about to board his motorized tricycle
and had no chance to resist or defend himself, and as a result, the said victim
suffered 'Multiple stab wounds in the chest, upper extremities and
abdomen', that caused severe blood loss and the eventual demise of the said
victim, to the prejudice and damage of his heirs. 3
On May 27, 2016, at around 6:45 a.m., Botial and Manny F. Manaois
were in Gayaman, Binmaley, Pangasinan, preparing to leave for work. Botial
was loading a welding machine onboard a tricycle while Manaois was about
to board and drive the said vehicle. As Manaois was busy putting the key in
the ignition, Guarin, without any provocation or warning, suddenly stabbed
Manaois with a knife. Manaois tried to run and escape but Guarin pursued him
and stabbed him several times. Meanwhile, Botial, being stunned by the
incident, was not able to move or even shout for help. At the time the stabbing
ceased, Botial boarded Manaois into the tricycle to rush the latter to the
Specialist Group Hospital and Trauma Center in Dagupan City. 7
During the incident, Barangay Kagawad Rosario, who was living near
the area where the incident happened, was preparing to go to work when he
heard people shouting outside. Afterwards, he went outside to check what the
commotion was about. He then saw Guarin sitting ori the floor holding a
bloodied knife. Barangay Kagawad Rosario talked to Guarin and watched
him until the police authorities an-ived. During the investigation, Botial
returned and told the police that he witnessed the crime. He identified Guarin
as the perpetrator who stabbed Manaois several times. The police officers
seized a fifteen (15)-inch lmife from Guarin and brought him, together with
witnesses Botial and Barangay Kagawad Rosario, to the Police Station in
Binmaley, Pangasinan for further documentation.8
Records, p. I.
Id. at 20.
CA rollo, pp. 50-51.
6
Id. at 52.
Id. at 5 1.
Id.
Decision -3- G .R. No. 245306
treated. 9 The latter was attended to by Dr. Arenas. At the time Dr. Arenas
checked on Manaois, he noticed that the victim was on the brink of death as
be was gasping for breath. He looked pale, with no blood pressure and cardiac
activity. Manaois suffered twelve (12) stab wounds, four (4) abrasions, and
contusions. On the same day, Manaois died. 10
On the morning of May 27, 2016, Guarin was on his way to a sari-sari
store to buy coffee. Meanwhile, Manaois, armed with a knife and who
appeared to be drunk, approached and threatened to kill Guarin. Manaois tried
to stab Guarin, but the latter was not hit as he was able to step backward. For
the second time, Manaois attempted to stab Guarin, but the former fell on the
ground. Seizing the opportunity, Guarin disposed Manaois of the knife.
However, Guarin did not know what happened next. At the time Guarin was
able to regain his senses, he saw blood on his clothes and hands which made
him realize that he could have harmed Manaois. Afterwards, he surrendered
himself to Barangay Kagawad Rosario. 11
On May 31, 2017, the RTC convicted Guarin of the crime charged. The
dispositive portion of the Decision states:
SO ORDERED. 13
Records, p. 9.
JO
CA rollo, pp. 51-52.
II
Id. at 52-53.
12
Id. at 53.
13
Id. at 59.
Decision -4- G.R. No. 245306
There is aggression, only when the one attacked faces real and immediate
threat to his life. In the case at bar, other than the accused's testimony, no
other evidence had been adduced to show that it was Manny who initiated
the confrontation before the stabbing incident. Ranged against the testimony
of Arcadia, such an account, notably given almost a year after the subject
incident transpired which already provided the accused time to cogitate on
the facts, is impaled.
Even assuming that the attack was indeed initiated by Manny, the
imminence of the peril on the accused's life already ceased the moment he
succeeded in disarming Mam1y of the knife. x x x.
On appeal, the CA agreed with the findings of the trial court that even
assuming that unlawful aggression was present on the part of Manaois, there
was no longer any danger on Guarin' s person from the moment he disarmed
the former of his knife. The appellate court was convinced that Botial's
testimony was clear, steadfast, convincing, and point to no other conclusion
that Guarin stabbed Manaois to death. Likewise, the CA pointed out that the
RTC correctly appreciated treachery as a circumstance to qualify the offense
to murder. While the judgment of conviction was sustained, the award of
damages was modified. Thefallo of the August 30, 2018 Decision reads:
so ORDERED. 15
Now before us, the People and Guarin manifested that they would no
longer file a Supplemental Brief, taking into account the thorough and
substantial discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs before the
CA.
14
Id. at 55; citation omitted.
15
Rollo, p. 16.
Decision -s- G.R. No. 245306
The Court resolves to dismiss the appeal for failure to sufficiently show
reversible error in the judgment of conviction to warrant the exercise of our
appellate jurisdiction.
16 Johnny Carcia Yap v. People, G.R. No. 2342 17, November 14, 2018 ; and People v. Racal, 817 Phil.
665,677(2017).
17
~
Records, p. I I.
18
People v. Tica, 8 17 Phil. 588, 594-595 (2017).
19
Id. at 595.
Decision -6- G.R. No. 245306
While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies first and
foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no
unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded.
Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding the justifying
circumstance of self-defense; if there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other
two requisites of self-defense will have no basis. 20
20
21
22
Id. at 595-596.
Id. at 596.
Records, pp. 61-6 1A.
{7
Decision - 7- G.R. No. 245306
that the nature and number of wounds are constantly and unremittingly
considered important indicia which disprove a plea of self-defense. 23
Based from the foregoing, the inevitable conclusion is that the assertion
of self-defense by Guarin cannot stand, absent the elements that must be
proven to have a successful invocation of self-defense.
Now, it has been established that Guarin stabbed and killed Manaois
without the justifying circumstance of self-defense. The other question to be
resolved is whether or not the killing was attended by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery. Paragraph 16, A1iicle 14 of the RPC defines
treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of
the crime against a person which tend directly and specially to ensure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by
the aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby
ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. 24
On the other issue, Guarin assails the RTC 's reliance on the testimony
ofBotial, claiming that his testimony was doubtful and not worthy of full faith
and credit. In support, Guarin imputes that Botial 's failure to warn Manaois
2]
People v. Tica, 8 17 Phil. 588, 597 (20 17).
24
People v. Joseph Ampo, G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019.
25
Id
Decision - 8- G.R. No. 245306
or shout for help is contrary to human experience and that it is not common,
thus, not credible.
The fact that Botial failed to warn Manaois or shout for help during the
incident does not make his testimony highly suspicious as Guarin would want
it to appear. Such reaction was not at all uncommon or unnatural so as to make
his testimony incredible. Placed in the same or similar situation, some may
choose to intervene, but others may opt to stay away and remain hidden. It is
settled that there could be no hard and fast gauge for measuring a person's
reaction or behavior when confronted with a startling, not to mention
horrifying, occurrence, as in this case. Witnesses of startling occurrences react
differently depending upon their situation and state of mind, and there is no
standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a
strange, startling or frightful experience. The workings of the human mind
placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently
to shocking stimulus - some may shout, some may faint, and others may be
plunged into insensibility.26
The trial court finds no reason not to believe the testimony of Botial.
Absence of any controverting evidence that the identification and recollection
made by Botial were wrongly made or, otherwise, ill-motivated, they deserve
full faith and credit.
The Court defers to the trial court in this respect, especially considering
that it was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the
witnesses presented by both parties. When the issues revolve on matters of
credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of
the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight
thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high
respect, if not conclusive effect because the trial comi has the unique
opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position
to discern whether they are telling the truth. Having had the opportunity to
observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner
in which they gave their testimonies, the trial judge can better detennine if
such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh
conflicting testimonies. 27
Hence, as to the penalty, this Court agrees with the CA and the RTC in
imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with the provisions
of Article 248 of the RPC, in relation to Article 63 of the same code.
An interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed
on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Decision until fully
paid. 31
28
People v. Placer, 719 Phil. 268, 281-282 (2013).
29 783 Phi I. 806 (20 16).
JO
Id.
31
See Bangko Sentral ng Pi lipinas Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, effective July I, 2013, in Nacar
v. Calte,y Frames. el al.. 716 Phi l. 267, 279-28 1 (2013).
Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 245306
SO ORDERED.
.PERALTA
WE CONCUR:
S. CAGUIOA
- ::::s~: GA~
SAMUEL H.
~
Associate Justice
Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 245306
CERTIFICATION