Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABRAHAM AGSALOG and JOVITO SIBLAS y OBAÑA 427 SCRA 624 (2004)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABRAHAM AGSALOG and JOVITO SIBLAS y OBAÑA 427 SCRA 624 (2004)

It does not follow that a sudden and unexpected attack is tainted with treachery for it could have been that the same was done on impulse, as a reaction to an actual or imagined provocation offered by the victim.

While Eduardo Marzan y Teñoso (Marzan) and his uncle Tony Opiña was drinking at the Jessica Mae Videoke at the San Quintin Public Market in Pangasinan, they had a misunderstanding with Abraham Agsalog (Agsalog) and Jovito Siblas y Obaña (Siblas). Later that day, Agsalog went to the house of the Marzan and they had an exchange of words after which Agsalog stabbed Marzan who died as a result thereof. Agsalog and Siblas provided for a different version of the story. Agsalog claims that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and he was merely defending himself. The Regional Trial Court brushed aside the version of Agsalog and Siblas and convicted them of Aggravated Murder punishable by Death Penalty.

Hence the automatic review of the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the defense raised by Agsalog and Siblas is meritorious

HELD:

That the stabbing is not self – defense.

Even assuming that the victim indeed held the shoulder of Agsalog, that could not have constituted actual or imminent peril to Agsalog‘s life, limb or right, especially in light of Siblas testimony that after that stage of the incident, the victim and Agsalog pushed each other. It is unthinkable for Siblas to have missed witnessing the alleged attempt of the victim to stab Agsalog if indeed there was such an attempt. There being no unlawful aggression, there is no self-defense, complete or incomplete. That the killing is not qualified by evident premeditation and treachery. As for the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, for it to be appreciated, the following requisites should be proven: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination, and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. While the victim slapped Siblas hours before the stabbing and it is thus not improbable for Agsalog and Siblas to have hatched a plan to avenge the same, still, the circumstances as presented by the prosecution fail to show evident premeditation, which must be based upon external acts and not presumed from mere lapse of time. The testimony of Edwin that when Agsalog and Siblas arrived at his yard and called for the victim, Agsalog ―sounded like he was mad, must surely have put the victim on guard, given the fact that a few hours before he slapped Siblas. There is thus reasonable doubt on whether treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime. The crime committed was then only homicide.