People V Matibag

The Facts:

In an Amended Information4 dated May 5, 2005, Matibag was charged with the crime of Murder defined
and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,5 the accusatory portion of
which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

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.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Matibag entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment. After the termination of the pre-trial, trial on
the merits ensued.

The prosecution asserted that at around 8:40 in the evening of March 27, 2005, Enrico Clar de Jesus Duhan
(Duhan), who just came from a meeting with the other officers of the homeowners� association of Twin
Villa Subdivision, was walking along Iron Street in Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City when Matibag
confronted Duhan, and asked, �ano bang pinagsasasabi mo?� Duhan replied �wala,� and without
warning, Matibag delivered a fist blow hitting Duhan on the left cheek and causing him to teeter
backwards. Matibag then pulled out his gun and shot Duhan, who fell face-first on the pavement. While
Duhan remained in that position, Matibag shot him several more times. PO2 Tom Falejo, a member of the
Philippine National Police, positively identified Matibag and stated on record that he arrested the latter
on the night of March 27, 2005. Dr. Antonio S. Vertido who conducted an autopsy on Duhan confirmed
that the latter suffered gunshot wounds in the head and chest which led to his death.

In his defense, Matibag alleged that on said date, he was at the despedida party of his neighbor when
Duhan arrived together with the other officers of the homeowners� association. Wanting to settle a
previous misunderstanding, Matibag approached Duhan and extended his hand as a gesture of
reconciliation. However, Duhan pushed it away and said, �putang ina mo, ang yabang mo,� thereby
provoking Matibag to punch him in the face. Matibag saw Duhan pull something from his waist and fearing
that it was a gun and Duhan was about to retaliate, Matibag immediately drew his own gun, shot Duhan,
and hurriedly left the place. Matibag went to see his police friend, Sgt. Narciso Amante, to turn himself in,
but the latter was unavailable at the time. As Matibag headed back home, he was stopped by police
officers who asked if he was involved in the shooting incident. He then readily admitted his
involvement.9cralawred
The RTC Ruling

In a Decision10 dated August 1, 2008, the RTC convicted Matibag as charged, sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of Duhan the amounts of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, ?59,000.00 as actual damages, and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages.

The RTC refused to give credence to Matibag�s claim of self-defense as he failed to prove the presence
of unlawful aggression on Duhan�s part, finding that: (a) Duhan�s words and actions prior to
Matibag�s attack could not be considered as a real threat against him; (b) no firearm was recovered from
the victim; (c) Matibag�s account that Duhan was about to pull something from his waist, which thus led
him to believe that he was about to be shot, remained uncorroborated; and (d) the number of gunshot
wounds Duhan sustained contradicts the plea of self-defense.

Separately, the RTC appreciated the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery since the attack
was sudden, unprovoked, and without any warning on the victim who was unarmed and in a defenseless
position.13 Likewise, the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was appreciated
since a firearm was used in the commission of a crime and, hence, considered unlicensed.14cralawred

Dissatisfied, Matibag appealed15 to the CA.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The CA Ruling

In a Decision16 dated September 13, 2012, the CA affirmed Matibag�s conviction in toto.17cralawred

The CA agreed with the RTC�s findings that: (a) treachery attended the killing of Duhan as the attack on
him was sudden;18 and (b) an unlicensed firearm was used in committing the crime, which is considered
as a special aggravating circumstance.19cralawred

Hence, the instant appeal.

Issue:

The sole issue for the Court�s resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld the conviction of
Matibag for Murder.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Ruling;

The appeal is bereft of merit.

In the review of a case, the Court is guided by the long-standing principle that factual findings of the trial
court, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight and respect. These factual findings should
not be disturbed on appeal, unless there are facts of weight and substance that were overlooked or
misinterpreted and that would materially affect the disposition of the case. The Court has carefully
scrutinized the records and finds no reason to deviate from the RTC and CA�s factual findings. There is
no indication that the trial court, whose findings the CA affirmed, overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the Court defers to the trial court
on this score, considering too that it was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the
witnesses presented by both parties.

On this score, the Court now proceeds to resolve this case on points of law.

Matibag is charged with the crime of Murder, which is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC,
as amended. In order to warrant a conviction, the prosecution must establish by proof beyond reasonable
doubt that: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him or her; (c) the killing was attended by any of
the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (d) the killing is not Parricide or
Infanticide.

Under Article 14 of the RPC, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make. In People v. Tan,22 the Court explained that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked.23 In People v. Perez,24 it
was explained that a frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. The qualifying circumstance
may still be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to
prepare for his or her defense.

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.

This finding of treachery further correlates to Matibag�s plea of self-defense. Note that by invoking self-
defense, Matibag, in effect, admitted to the commission of the act for which he was charged, albeit under
circumstances that, if proven, would have exculpated him. With this admission, the burden of proof
shifted to Matibag to show that the killing of Duhan was attended by the following circumstances: (a)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel such aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-
defense.

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.

Moreover, as the RTC and CA held, the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm,
which was duly alleged in the Information, should be appreciated in the imposition of penalty. Presidential
Decree No. (PD) 1866,35 as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8294,36 treats the unauthorized use of a
licensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of homicide or murder as a special aggravating
circumstance:

Section 1. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

�Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or

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.

Further, under Section 5 of RA 8294, the scope of the term �unlicensed firearm� has already been
expanded as follows:

Sec. 5. Coverage of the Term Unlicensed Firearm. � The term unlicensed firearm shall include:

1. firearms with expired license; or

2. unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, when Matibag killed Duhan with his firearm, the use thereof was unauthorized under the
purview of RA 8294 and is equally appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance. As a result, the
imposition of the maximum penalty of death, which is reduced to reclusion perpetua in light of RA 9346,38
stands proper. To this, the Court adds that Matibag is not eligible for parole.

Finally, case law provides that for death resulting from the crime of Murder, the heirs of the victim are
entitled to the following awards: (a) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim without need of
evidence other than the commission of the crime;40 (b) actual or compensatory damages to the extent
proved,41 or temperate damages when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be
provided with certainty;42 (c) moral damages;43 and (d) exemplary damages when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

In line with recent jurisprudence, civil indemnity in the amount of P100,000.00 and moral damages in the
amount of P100,000.00 are awarded to Duhan�s heirs without need of evidence other than the
commission of the crime and Duhan�s death. Considering further that the crime was committed with
treachery, exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00 is also granted.

The award of P59,000.00 as actual damages should, however, be deleted as the records do not show that
the prosecution was able to prove the amount actually expended. In lieu thereof, P25,000.00 as
temperate damages is awarded to conform with prevailing jurisprudence.46 In addition, interest at the
legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid is imposed on
all monetary awards.

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.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perez, JJ., concur.