Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

KAPUNAN, J.:

The dance was held beside the Purok Center which was more of a waiting shed than a building. It was made of pawid and light materials. The area beside the Purok Center was enclosed with bamboo posts and around it were chairs for the ladies. In the center of the dance hall was a petromax to illumine the area. ² Another petromax was placed on the periphery of the dance floor near the gate and the fence. ³

After dancing to the song they requested, Ramon Amarado, Jr. and Allan Portin left the dance hall. ⁴ On their way out, appellant approached Ramon and suddenly stabbed him. Ramon fell face down to the ground. ⁵ Allan, who was walking ahead of Ramon, turned around to help him. Likewise, Danilo Domingo, who witnessed the whole incident, and the rest of the group hurried over to Allan and the wounded Ramon. They carried Ramon to the house of one Nestor Tañada where they borrowed a sledge and a carabao. The group boarded Ramon onto the sledge to bring him to the hospital. Ramon, However, died on the way there. Hence, instead of proceeding to the hospital, the group brought the lifeless body of Ramon to his house in the poblacion of Aborlan. ⁶

Ramon's body was autopsied by Dr. Rogelio C. Divinagracia, municipal health officer of Aborlan. The postmortem report prepared by Dr. Divinagracia shows that Ramon sustained a stab wound in the epigastric area which penetrated the liver. Ramon died of shock secondary to massive hemorrhage due to the injury to the liver which was caused by a "sharp pointed and sharp-edge(d) instrument." ⁷

Danilo and Allan executed sworn statements before the Aborlan police on January 4, 1990. Both pointed to appellant as the culprit in the killing of Ramon. ⁸

During the trial, Danilo Domingo recounted what he had witnessed that fateful night of 2 January 1990. At around 11:00 that evening, while he (Danilo) was dancing, he saw Ramon and Allan going out of the dance hall. Allan was walking ahead of Ramon. Danilo then saw appellant coming from outside the dance hall and walking towards Ramon. A towel was wrapped around appellant's head but Danilo nevertheless recognized him when his face was exposed to the light. He also easily recognized the appellant through the blue striped shirt he (appellant) was wearing that night. When appellant met Ramon, the former suddenly stabbed the latter with a knife. ⁹

For his part, Allan Fortin testified that he was the first to leave the dance hall. Ramon followed him afterwards. Suddenly, while they were walking, he heard a "thud" and when he looked back, he saw the bloodied Ramon lying face down on the ground. At the same time, Allan saw appellant running outside the fence surrounding the dance hall carrying a "stainless" knife about six (6) inches (one dangkal) long. ¹¹

The prosecution also presented the victim's father, Ramon Amarado, Sr. who was the barangay captain of Barake, Aborlan. According to Ramon, Sr., appellant killed his son out of anger at him because whenever appellant went to Barake, he would cause trouble and it was Ramon, Sr. who would always restrain and discipline him. Ramon, Sr. further testified that they spent P6,000.00 for his son's wake and funeral. ¹²

Interposing denial, the defense presented only appellant as witness. Appellant did not deny being at the dance when the stabbing incident occurred but strongly contends tat he was not the one who stabbed and killed Ramon Amarado, Jr. Appellant claimed that the incident was precipitated by a misunderstanding regarding requests for music pieces. As soon as he arrived at the dance hall, appellant requested the person in charge to play a certain number. After that piece, the request made by Ramon, Allan, and their companions was played. As the latter group danced, appellant stood at one side of the hall. When they finished dancing, Ramon's group, consisting of around seven persons, approached appellant. Ramon wanted to know why appellant's request was granted when he had just arrived. Appellant replied that Ramon should ask the person in charge of the music. This angered Ramon who pulled out his bolo from his jacket. Allan did the same. Upon seeing the weapons, appellant moved back, but when he leaned on the fence, the latter gave way. When he found himself outside the fence, he ran away. ¹³

On 12 July 1993, the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 47, ¹⁴ rendered the decision disposing of Criminal Case No. 8784 as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED. ¹⁵

Appellant is now before this Court alleging that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the crime, and that the trial court erred (a) in finding him guilty of murder despite the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and (b) in failing to appreciate the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense in his favor. ¹⁶

Appellant contends that, if at all he should be found guilty of killing Ramon Amarado, Jr., he should be liable only for the crime of homicide ¹⁷ because there is nothing to support the finding that the assault upon said victim was sudden, unexpected, or done with impunity. He alleges that prosecution eyewitness Danilo Domingo could not have seen how he allegedly attacked the victim because Danilo's eyes were focused on Ramon. ¹⁸ Neither could Allan be expected to witness the killing because the alleged attack was done behind his back. ¹⁹

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. ²⁰ The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked. ²¹

It is clear from the aforequoted testimony that treachery attended the killing of Ramon. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, Ramon was completely unaware of appellant's criminal design. The latter casually strode over to him and stabbed him without any warning. ²³ The suddenness of the attack, without any provocation on the part of the victim who was innocently walking out of the dance area and totally oblivious of the impending attack against him, coupled with the fact that the victim was unarmed and thus had no opportunity to parry the blow, ²⁴ indubitably demonstrate the treacherous nature of the assault. Ramon never had the chance to defend himself.

We adhere to the sound doctrine that appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment of the testimonies of eyewitnesses by the trial court because of its unequaled opportunity to observe on the stand their demeanor and manner of testifying and to detect whether they are telling the truth or not. ²⁵ It is a fundamental legal aphorism that the conclusions of the trial judge on the credibility of witnesses command great respect and consideration especially when the conclusion are supported by the evidence on record. ²⁶ In the case at bar, to counter the aforequoted eyewitness account, the defense presents the sole testimony of appellant, which is not only self-serving but uncorroborated as well.

Indeed, the trial court correctly assessed the issue of credibility in favor of the prosecution. That the prosecution presented only one eyewitness to the crime did not in any way dilute the evidentiary value of his credible testimony. After all, the testimony of a single witness, if found convincing and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. ²⁷

Appellant's claim incomplete self-defense, which, under Art. 69 of the Revised penal Code would lower the penalty imposed upon appellant by one or two degree is, likewise, untenable. Other than the unsupported and unpersuasive testimony of appellant, there is no evidence on record that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. It should be remembered that unlawful aggression is an indispensable element in the justifying circumstance of self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. ²⁸

Appellant presents inconsistent defenses. Before this Court, appellant claims incomplete self-defense. This means that he admits the commission of the crime but seeks exemption from liability on the ground that he was simply attempting to preserve his own life. ²⁹ However, at the trial, appellant interposed denial as his defense and completely disowned any participation in the crime. He testified thus: