THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256056. November 10, 2021.]
JOSE JIMMY OPSIMAR y TUBILAN, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 10, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256056 (Jose Jimmy Opsimar y Tubilan v. People of the Philippines). — The Court GRANTS petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision 1 dated June 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 03169 which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated February 19, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 42 of Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 2017-24255 finding petitioner Jose Jimmy Opsimar y Tubilan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.
Petitioner Jimmy Opsimar was charged with Homicide under the following Information:
That on or about the 16 January 2017, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, stab and wound one Jeffrey C. Bulfa with a kitchen knife, a deadly weapon thereby wounding and inflicting upon the latter the following injuries, to wit: multiple stab wounds (L) penetrating chest and abdomen, which injuries directly caused the death of said Jeffrey C. Bulfa.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. However, he admitted killing the victim, albeit in self-defense. Further, the parties stipulated on the authenticity of the Medical Certificate and its contents. 4
Prosecution's Evidence
Christopher Labrador (Labrador), a resident of Purok Gumamela, Calindagan, Dumaguete City, testified that in the afternoon of January 16, 2017, around 2:45 p.m., he heard some persons arguing outside his house. When he went out to check the commotion, he saw petitioner stabbed the victim twice and even described that petitioner was holding a bloodied knife. Labrador also said that he was 7 to 8 meters away from the petitioner. After petitioner stabbed the victim, the latter ran towards his direction with petitioner chasing him. 5
Nelson D. Noay (Noay), the barangay captain of Calindagan, Dumaguete testified that around 2:00 p.m. on January 16, 2017, he was inspecting some busted light bulbs at Purok Gumamela. While he was inspecting, he saw two persons arguing about 8 meters away. One of them shouted "just return my money." Since his view was obscured by some plants, he moved to get a better view. He then saw petitioner holding a knife while holding the shirt of the victim. Noay immediately turned on his handset to signal his presence, prompting the two persons to run away. Thereafter, he noticed some blood on the street. Later on, Noay went to see petitioner in the detention cell at the Dumaguete City Police Station. There, petitioner admitted that he got angry with the victim because the latter sold him "tawas" instead of shabu. 6
According to the Medical Certificate, the victim died of cardiac arrest and massive blood loss as a result of the multiple stab wounds found on the left chest, penetrating the chest and abdomen. 7 CAIHTE
Evidence of the Defense
While petitioner admitted to killing the victim, he claimed that it was in self-defense. He testified that at around 2:00 p.m. of January 17, 2017, he went to brgy. Calindagan in order to collect money which the victim owed him. According to petitioner, the victim earlier borrowed P400.00, which the latter promised to pay the same day. When petitioner demanded from the victim to return his money, the latter got angry and rushed towards petitioner. Petitioner was able to hold the collar of the victim but the latter has knife and tried to stab petitioner. The latter grappled with the victim's knife. In the course of the struggle, petitioner was able to slam the victim to the ground accidentally stabbing the victim at his stomach. To substantiate the struggle, petitioner also presented a Medical Certificate showing that he was injured on the third interdigital web of his hand. 8
Ruling of the RTC
On February 19, 2018, the RTC issued a Decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide. The RTC did not consider the argument of the petitioner. The RTC held that the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses established that it was the petitioner who stabbed the victim, who even chased the latter when he ran after being stabbed. 9
Also the Medical Certificate presented by the prosecution, which the petitioner admitted disclosed that the victim was stabbed several times disproving the claim of self-defense. Moreover, when Noay went to the detention cell, petitioner admitted that he got angry with the victim for selling him tawas instead of shabu. 10 Thus, the RTC held:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding accused JOSE JIMMY OPSIMAR y TUBILAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide for the killing of Jeffrey C. Bulfa. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of seven (7) years of prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is also ordered to pay to the family of the victim the following amounts: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 11
Ruling of the Court
On June 24, 2019, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC. 12 The CA did not consider the claim of petitioner that it was the victim who initially attacked him since such allegation cannot stand against the categorical testimony of the two witnesses that it was the petitioner who stabbed the victim and even chased the latter after stabbing him. Further, assuming that it was indeed the victim who initially attacked petitioner and the latter only acted in self-defense, the moment petitioner disarmed the victim, the supposed unlawful aggression had already ceased, hence, petitioner no longer has the right to kill or injure the victim. 13 Thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the 19 February 2018 Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 7th Judicial Region, Branch 42, Dumaguete City, convicting accused-appellant Jose Jimmy Opsimar y Tubilan of Homicide, for which he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of seven (7) years of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that he is likewise ORDERED to pay the heirs of the deceased actual damages in the amount of Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Nine and 87/100 Pesos (P26,479.87). The interest rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this ruling until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 14
Petitioner's Arguments
Petitioner argued that there were inconsistencies in the testimony of Labrador. Petitioner claimed that Labrador testified that he saw petitioner stabbed the victim twice without any details as to the circumstances surrounding the stabbing incident. Further, Labrador earlier stated that he saw petitioner stab the victim twice and yet during his cross-examination, Labrador said that he saw the knife already with blood, thus putting into serious question Labrador's credibility if he really saw the stabbing incident. 15
Also, the prosecution did not establish facts showing that petitioner was the unlawful aggressor. No testimony was presented relating to what happened prior to the argument and the stabbing incident to determine who was really the unlawful aggressor. In truth, the victim is the unlawful aggressor when he, without warning, attacked petitioner and tried to stab the latter. 16
Petitioner does not deny that he stabbed the victim, but it was only done in self-defense. He only confronted the victim to demand payment of the latter's debt. However, the victim suddenly attacked petitioner with a knife. Petitioner also claimed that his act of striking the victim is a natural course of action to preserve his life from imminent peril. 17
Issue
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether petitioner should be held guilty of Homicide. DETACa
Ruling of the Court
After perusal of the records of this case, We find that petitioner failed to establish that the CA erred in affirming his conviction for the crime of Homicide.
Self-defense, when invoked as a justifying circumstance, implies the admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act. Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. When the accused, however, admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. 18 The burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to prove that all the essential elements of self-defense are present. If the accused failed to prove the essential elements of self-defense, conviction follows. 19 The accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because it could no longer be denied that he admitted to be the author of the victim's death. 20
To successfully invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense, it is necessary to prove the following: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Most important among the requisites of self-defense is unlawful aggression which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as justifying circumstance. Unless the victim commits unlawful aggression against the accused, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated. 21
In the present case, petitioner failed to successfully prove the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Despite his statements that it was the victim who is the unlawful aggressor, such statements remain uncorroborated by any clear and convincing evidence.
The testimony of Labrador established the fact that petitioner stabbed the victim twice and even chased the victim when he ran after being stabbed. The allegation of petitioner stating that Labrador made inconsistent statements by testifying that he saw petitioner stab the victim twice and yet during the cross-examination, Labrador said that he saw the knife already with blood, cannot destroy the latter's credibility. Petitioner is confusing the facts. Labrador clearly testified that he saw the knife already with blood after petitioner stabbed the victim. 22 It is therefore not inconsistent with Labrador's earlier testimony that he saw petitioner stab the victim, in fact, it supports and corroborates the same.
The claim of petitioner that he accidentally stabbed the victim when he was able to slam the victim on the ground is belied by the Medical Certificate which petitioner admitted. The Medical Certificate stated that the victim sustained multiple stab wounds penetrating the chest and abdomen. The nature and the location of the stab wounds clearly indicates petitioner's intent to kill the victim and not simply to defend himself.
With the above circumstances, petitioner is correctly convicted of the crime of Homicide. The RTC's imposition of the indeterminate penalty of seven (7) years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, is affirmed.
As to the award of damages, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages are affirmed. However, the award of P26,479.87 as actual damages is modified. Instead, an award of P50,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages is awarded since the actual damages presented by the heirs of the victim is below P50,000.00, consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence. 23
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated June 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 03169 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Jose Jimmy Opsimar y Tubilan is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Jeffrey C. Bulfa the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
All other dispositions not otherwise modified, STANDS.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Alino-Geluz, with the concurrence Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga; rollo, pp. 90-100;
2. Penned by Judge Marie Rose G. Inocando-Paras; id. at 41-45.
3. Id. at 41.
4. Id. at 41.
5. Id. at 50-51.
6. Id. at 50.
7. Id. at 66.
8. Id. at 92-93.
9. Id. at 44.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 44-45.
12. Id. at 99.
13. Id. at 97-98.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 22-25.
16. Id. at 28.
17. Id. at 29.
18. People v. Macaraig, 810 Phil. 831, 937 (2017).
19. People v. Manzano Jr., 827 Phil. 113 (2018).
20. People v. Paneri, 823 Phil. 738, 476 (2018).
21. Id.
22. TSN dated July 7, 2017.
23. People of the Philippines vs. Tirso Sibbu, 808 Phil. 276 (2017).