SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232244. June 19, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ARIES SANTOS y SANTOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232244 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus ARIES SANTOS y SANTOS, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds no error committed in the assailed Decision. 1 The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion that accused-appellant Aries Santos y Santos (accused-appellant) is indeed guilty of the crime of Murder. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the Court of Appeals (CA), were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
Accused-appellant asserts that he acted in self-defense. When the accused interposes self-defense, he must prove that: (1) he was not the unlawful aggressor; (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and (3) he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. Although all these elements must concur, self-defense is perched in proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. 2 Without it, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete. 3
Accused-appellant claims that he was passing by the victim's house and that upon seeing him, the victim approached him while holding a knife. The victim tried to lunge at him so he stepped back but the victim continued to move towards him. He got hold of the victim's arm and the latter lost hold of the knife. The said knife dropped to the ground, and near their feet. Assuming arguendo that the following assertions were true, it can be said that the supposed unlawful aggression that accused-appellant was trying to describe, already ceased. There was no more unlawful aggression to speak of at that moment. Moreover, the claim of accused-appellant that the knife kept on hitting the victim as the two of them were grappling for its possession, as if accidentally, is not consistent with his theory that he was defending himself from the alleged unlawful aggression of the victim.
Therefore, it follows then that the claim of incomplete self-defense will not also prosper because there was no unlawful aggression. The Court agrees with the CA and the Regional Trial Court 4 that the physical evidence based on the nature and the number of injuries sustained by the victim negate self-defense. A plea of self-defense is belied by the nature, number, and location of the wounds inflicted on the victim since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend. 5
As to the issue of whether the killing was attended by treachery, the Court rules in the affirmative. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. 6
A careful reading of the statements made by the eyewitnesses reveal that the victim was busy repairing the laptop of one Geraldine Dela Cruz when accused-appellant arrived without warning and suddenly hit the back of the head of the victim. The victim's back was against accused-appellant and his head was bowed down and focused on the laptop being repaired. Accused-appellant repeatedly stabbed the victim at the back and even pulled him face up then continued to stab him. The victim was totally unaware of the imminent danger on his life, and was not in a position to defend himself. Verily, treachery attended the commission of the crime.
Finally, in view of recent jurisprudence, 7 the damages awarded in the assailed Decision are hereby modified. The civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall be P75,000.00 each. 8
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07916 finding accused-appellant Aries Santos y Santos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages shall be P75,000.00 each.
All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Decision dated February 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07916, penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting; rollo, pp. 2-11.
2.People v. Vicente, 452 Phil. 986, 997 (2003).
3.Id. at 997.
4. See Judgment dated November 5, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226, Quezon City in Crim. Case No. Q13-03550, penned by Presiding Judge Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 41-49.
5.People v. Ramos, 715 Phil. 193, 206 (2013).
6.People v. Las Piñas, 739 Phil. 502, 524-525 (2014).
7.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
8.Id.