People of the Philippines vs. Efren Laurio y Rosales
G.R. No. 182523 ; 13 September 2012
PONENTE: Leonardo-De Castro
SUBJECT: Murder, Conspiracy, Treachery, Self-Defense
FACTS:
On 11 December 1998 on or about 9:30 PM, the victim was drinking a bottle of Red Horse Beer in front of a Sari-Sari Store. Later, he threw the bottle in the direction of the accused Laurio and Gullab, who were having a drinking spree. Accused Gullab then went to confront the victim while Laurio followed. Gullab then punched the victim in the face causing him to fall to the ground. Thereafter, accused Laurio repeatedly stabbed the victim while the later was on the ground. Laurio then wrapped the knife with a white towel then proceeded to a nearby vulcanizing shop to clean his blooded hands.
Laurio alleged during his testimony that he brought out the knife only when he saw the victim bring out a knife of his own when he fell to the ground and that his act of stabbing the victim was merely out of self-defense.
The RTC rendered a decision finding Laurio guilty for Murder while finding Gullab guilty of Slight Physical Injuries.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not there was conspiracy
- Whether or not the crime was attended to by treachery, which qualified the crime of homicide to murder
- Whether or not accused Laurio acted in self-defense
HELD:
- No, the court finds that there is insufficient positive and direct evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had conspired with his co-accused in the killing of the victim. According to the eyewitness, Gullab merely stood and watched while his co-accused repeatedly stabbed the victim. He did not actively participate in the commission of the murder of the victim. Accused Gullab cannot therefore, be held liable for the Murder but is liable for Slight Physical Injuries only
- Yes, As held by the Supreme Court, the crime can be qualified by treachery if the stabbing of the victim was done while the latter was lying on the ground, defenseless. Stabbing the victim repeatedly for seven (7) times when the latter was already defenseless on the ground afforded accused impunity without risk to himself arising from any defense which the victim might make.
- A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the elements of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It “presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger – not merely threatening and intimidating action.” It is present “only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life.”
In the present case, the element of unlawful aggression is absent. Mere allegation by appellant that the victim pulled out a knife is insufficient to prove unlawful aggression and warrant the justification of the victim’s killing.
