Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84207:59659&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:55:52+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL MATIBAG Y DE VILLA @ “DANI” OR “DANILO,” Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL MATIBAG Y DE VILLA @ “DANI” OR “DANILO,” Accused-Appellant.
That on or about March 27, 2005 at around 8:40 o’clock [sic] in the evening at Iron Street, Twin Villa Subdivision, Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a Beretta Caliber .9MM Pistol with Serial No. 3191M9, a deadly weapon, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with said pistol one Enrico Clar de Jesus Duhan, while the latter was completely defenseless, thereby hitting him and causing gunshot wounds at his head and chest, which directly resulted to the victim’s death.
That the special aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm is attendant in the commission of the offense.
On this score, the Court now proceeds to resolve this case on points of law.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that Matibag, who was armed with a gun, confronted Duhan, and without any provocation, punched and shot him on the chest.26 Although the attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it was made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding too that he was unarmed.27 Matibag also failed to prove that a heated exchange of words preceded the incident so as to forewarn Duhan against any impending attack from his assailant.28 The deliberateness of Matibag’s act is further evinced from his disposition preceding the moment of execution. As the RTC aptly pointed out, Matibag was ready and destined to effect such dastardly act, considering that he had an axe to grind when he confronted Duhan, coupled with the fact that he did so, armed with a loaded handgun.29 Based on these findings, the Court concludes that treachery was correctly appreciated.
Among the foregoing elements, the most important is unlawful aggression. It is well-settled that there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.31 Jurisprudence states that not every form or degree of aggression justifies a claim of self-defense.32 For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude,33 as against the one claiming self-defense.
Evidently, the treacherous manner by which Matibag assaulted Duhan negates unlawful aggression in the sense above-discussed. As mentioned, the prosecution was able to prove that the attack was so sudden and unexpected, and the victim was completely defenseless. On the other hand, Matibag’s version that he saw Duhan pull something from his waist (which thereby impelled his reaction), remained uncorroborated. In fact, no firearm was recovered from the victim.34 Hence, by these accounts, Matibag’s allegation of unlawful aggression and, consequently, his plea of self-defense cannot be sustained. The foregoing considered, the Court upholds Matibag’s conviction for the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, as charged.
“If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 13, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03759 finding accused-appellant Daniel Matibag y De Villa @ “Dani” or “Danilo” GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and ordering him to pay the Heirs of Enrico Clar de Jesus Duhan the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages, all with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until full payment.
2 Id. at 37-52. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 7-15. Penned by Judge Ruben A. Galvez.
5 See rollo, pp. 38-39. See also Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee; CA rollo, pp. 91-92.
6 See rollo, p. 39. See also CA rollo, pp. 7 and 91-92.
8 See rollo, pp. 39-40. See also CA rollo, pp. 7-9.
9 See rollo, pp. 40-41. See also CA rollo, pp. 10-11.
10 CA rollo, pp. 7-15.
12 See id. at 12-13.
13 See id. at 13.
15 See Notice of Appeal dated September 1, 2008; id. at 17.
18 See id. at 46-48.
19 See id. at 50-51.
20 See Almojuela v. People, G.R. No. 183202, June 2, 2014.
21People v. Zapuiz, G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 510, 518-519.
22 373 Phil. 990 (1999).
24 404 Phil. 380 (2001).
27 CA rollo p. 13.
29 CA rollo, p. 13.
30 See Article 11 (1) of the RPC. See also Guevarra v. People, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014.
31 See Guevarra v. People, id.
32 See People v. Warriner, G.R. No. 208678, June 16, 2014.
33 People v. Aleta, 603 Phil. 571, 581 (2009), citing People v. Caabay, 456 Phil. 792, 820 (2003).
34 CA rollo, p. 13.
35 Entitled “CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES; AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES” (June 29, 1983).
36 Entitled “AN ACT AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED: CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES; AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES” (June 6, 1997).
37 See People v. Molina, 354 Phil 746, 790 (1998).
40 See People v. Escleto, G.R. No. 183706, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 149, 160.
41 Civil Code, Article 2199.
42 Civil Code, Article 2224.
43 Civil Code, Article 2217.
44 Civil Code, Article 2230. See also People v. Escleto, supra note 40.
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good.
These amounts shall be the minimum indemnity and damages where death is the penalty warranted by the facts but is not imposable under present law.
46 See People v. Escleto, supra note 40, at 161.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.