Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51726:gr-180512-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:54:07+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOEL CUASAY, Accused-Appellant.
This is an appeal from the July 31, 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00625 which affirmed with modification the March 13, 2003 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40 in Calapan City in Criminal Case No. C-5385, finding accused-appellant Noel Cuasay guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The CA awarded PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim but deleted the award of PhP 50,000 as moral and exemplary damages.
That on or about the 15th day of October 1997, at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, in Barangay Estrella, Municipality of Naujan, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with treachery, without any justifiable cause and with the deliberate intent to take the life of EDUARDO ANSULI alias "EDDIE ANSULI" did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and suddenly attack, assault and stab the said EDUARDO ANSULI with a sharp-pointed instrument thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wound on the chest, causing his untimely demise.
ACCORDINGLY, finding herein accused Noel Cuasay y Borillo alias "Aping" guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery which is punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and there being no other aggravating or mitigating circumstances present in the instant case, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties provided for by law. The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim Eduardo Ansuli, alias "Eddie Ansuli", the amount of P50,000.00 as actual damages; the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages.
The accused shall be credited with the full time during which he had undergone preventive imprisonment provided that said accused [agree] voluntarily in writing to abide with the disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with only four-fifths (4/5) of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.
In his appeal before the CA, accused-appellant prayed for his acquittal based on self-defense, or for conviction for homicide only because of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation that resulted in incomplete self-defense. He asserted that treachery was not present since the incident was preceded by a heated altercation and there was no intention on his part to attack the victim.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS CULPABLE, THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY.
As aptly observed by the trial court, it is unlikely that the spectators will continue their business despite seeing the victim hit accused-appellant. It is unnatural for the players of mahjong and the barangay tanods present to not attempt to pacify them. Accused-appellant could have presented at least one of the witnesses who can support his claim of unlawful aggression by the victim, but he failed to do so. Accused-appellant's testimony is not realistic and, therefore, doubtful.
In contrast, the prosecution witness, Reyes, stated that accused-appellant suddenly attacked the victim. Reyes was able to present a convincing and straightforward account of the incident, particularly the identity of accused-appellant and the suddenness of the attack on the victim. Accused-appellant failed to impeach Reyes' testimony and there was no ill motive imputed against the latter. The trial court was thus correct in believing Reyes' account of the incident. Such finding of fact of the trial court is accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.13 Since accused-appellant failed to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the claim of self-defense cannot prosper.
Accused-appellant's alternative claim of passion or obfuscation likewise deserves no credit. To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.14 There was no evidence of unlawful aggression or any act on the part of the victim that could have caused accused-appellant to act with passion or obfuscation. He failed to present any witness or proof that would support his claim. Thus, the trial and appellate courts were correct in overruling the claim for said mitigating circumstance.
As regards the second issue, we agree with the courts' finding of treachery. We held that treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly or specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.15 In the case at bar, the victim was unarmed and unsuspecting when accused-appellant suddenly stabbed him. Treachery was clearly present in accused-appellant's method.
WHEREFORE, the July 31, 2007 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00625, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with treachery, is AFFIRMED in all respects with the MODIFICATION that he is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of Eduardo Ansuli the amount of PhP 50,000 as moral damages. The instant appeal is accordingly DENIED. No costs.
1 Rollo, pp. 4-15. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
2 CA rollo, pp. 57-66. Penned by Judge Tomas C. Leynes.
8 G.R. NOS. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
9 Supra note 1, at 14.
10 People v. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 64, 73.
11 Baxinela v. People, G.R. No. 149652, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 331, 342.
12 TSN, April 3, 2001, records, pp. 10-11.
13 People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 141631, April 4, 2003, 400 SCRA 650, 658.
14 People v. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002, January 24, 2006, 479SCRA 610, 625.
15 People v. Dumalahay, G.R. NOS. 131837-38, April 2, 2002, 380 SCRA 37, 46.
16 Soriano v. People, G.R. No. 148123, June 30, 2008; citing People v. Panado, G.R. No. 133439, December 26, 2000, 348 SCRA 679.

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