FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 245306. December 2, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGAR

GUARIN y VELOSO a.k.a. "Banong", accused-appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA, C.J : p

This is an appeal from the August 30, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09494 which affirmed with modification
the May 31, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69,
Lingayen, Pangasinan.
The Facts
Accused-appellant Edgar Guarin y Veloso was indicted for Murder as
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The accusatory portion of the Information, dated May 30, 2016, alleged:
That sometime in the morning of May 27, 2016 in Gayaman,
Binmaley, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill and with
treachery, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
assault and attack MANNY MANAOIS y FERNANDEZ, victim, by
deliberately and suddenly stabbing him several times with a sharp
bladed instrument while, he, the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim, was about to board his motorized tricycle and had no chance
to resist or defend himself, and as a result, the said victim suffered
'Multiple stab wounds in the chest, upper extremities and abdomen,'
that caused severe blood loss and the eventual demise of the said
victim, to the prejudice and damage of his heirs. 3
In his arraignment, Guarin pleaded not guilty 4 to the offense charged
in the information. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: Arcadio Botial,
Barangay Kagawad Arnold Rosario and Dr. Carlito Arenas. 5 The defense, for
its part, presented Guarin as its lone witness. 6
Version of the Prosecution
On May 27, 2016, at around 6:45 a.m., Botial and Manny F. Manaois
were in Gayaman, Binmaley, Pangasinan, preparing to leave for work. Botial
was loading a welding machine onboard a tricycle while Manaois was about
to board and drive the said vehicle. As Manaois was busy putting the key in
the ignition, Guarin, without any provocation or warning, suddenly stabbed
Manaois with a knife. Manaois tried to run and escape but Guarin pursued
him and stabbed him several times. Meanwhile, Botial, being stunned by the
incident, was not able to move or even shout for help. At the time the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 stabbing ceased, Botial boarded Manaois into the tricycle to rush the latter
to the Specialist Group Hospital and Trauma Center in Dagupan City. 7
During the incident, Barangay Kagawad Rosario, who was living near
the area where the incident happened, was preparing to go to work when he
heard people shouting outside. Afterwards, he went outside to check what
the commotion was about. He then saw Guarin sitting on the floor holding a
bloodied knife. Barangay Kagawad Rosario talked to Guarin and watched him
until the police authorities arrived. During the investigation, Botial returned
and told the police that he witnessed the crime. He identified Guarin as the
perpetrator who stabbed Manaois several times. The police officers seized a
fifteen (15)-inch knife from Guarin and brought him, together with witnesses
Botial and Barangay Kagawad Rosario, to the Police Station in Binmaley,
Pangasinan for further documentation. 8
PO1 Ryan S. Danglacruz conducted further investigation at the
Specialist Group Hospital and Trauma Center where Manaois was being
treated. 9 The latter was attended to by Dr. Arenas. At the time Dr. Arenas
checked on Manaois, he noticed that the victim was on the brink of death as
he was gasping for breath. He looked pale, with no blood pressure and
cardiac activity. Manaois suffered twelve (12) stab wounds, four (4)
abrasions, and contusions. On the same day, Manaois died. 10
Version of the Defense
On the morning of May 27, 2016, Guarin was on his way to asari-sari
store to buy coffee. Meanwhile, Manaois, armed with a knife and who
appeared to be drunk, approached and threatened to kill Guarin. Manaois
tried to stab Guarin, but the latter was not hit as he was able to step
backward. For the second time, Manaois attempted to stab Guarin, but the
former fell on the ground. Seizing the opportunity, Guarin disposed Manaois
of the knife. However, Guarin did not know what happened next. At the time
Guarin was able to regain his senses, he saw blood on his clothes and hands
which made him realize that he could have harmed Manaois. Afterwards, he
surrendered himself to Barangay Kagawad Rosario. 11
Guarin added in his testimony that earlier that morning, he woke up
with Manaois insulting him by calling him and the other members of his
family illiterate which Manaois had done several times before the incident.
Due to this, an altercation between them ensued. Guarin also stated that at
the time of the incident, Botial was inside his house so he could not have
witnessed the same. 12
On May 31, 2017, the RTC convicted Guarin of the crime charged. The
dispositive portion of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE, his guilt for the crime of murder defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code having been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused Edgar Guarin y Veloso
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
such accessory penalties provided for by law.
Said accused is likewise found liable to pay the heirs of Manny
Manaois indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 amount of [P]75,000.00 each, as well as temperate damages in the
amount of [P]25,000.00, all of which to earn interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this decision until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 13

In concluding that the requisites of self-defense were not met to justify

the killing of Manaois, the RTC ratiocinated:
There is aggression, only when the one attacked faces real and
immediate threat to his life. In the case at bar, other than the
accused's testimony, no other evidence had been adduced to show
that it was Manny who initiated the confrontation before the stabbing
incident. Ranged against the testimony of Arcadio, such an account,
notably given almost a year after the subject incident transpired
which already provided the accused time to cogitate on the facts, is
impaled.
Even assuming that the attack was indeed initiated by Manny,
the imminence of the peril on the accused's life already ceased the
moment he succeeded in disarming Manny of the knife. x x x.
Moreover, gauging from the accused's testimony, it was him,
not Manny, who had the reason to show aggression, he and his family
members having been the objects of Manny's insulting remarks not
only on the day of the subject incident but several times more
previously. The incessant remarks on him and his kins being
illiterates apparently took its toll on the accused that his mind
became consumed by the thought of revenge. His irate mental state
can in fact be seen from the number of stab wounds, about eleven in
all, he inflicted on Manny. 14
On appeal, the CA agreed with the findings of the trial court that even
assuming that unlawful aggression was present on the part of Manaois, there
was no longer any danger on Guarin's person from the moment he disarmed
the former of his knife. The appellate court was convinced that Botial's
testimony was clear, steadfast, convincing, and point to no other conclusion
that Guarin stabbed Manaois to death. Likewise, the CA pointed out that the
RTC correctly appreciated treachery as a circumstance to qualify the offense
to murder. While the judgment of conviction was sustained, the award of
damages was modified. The fallo of the August 30, 2018 Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
May 31, 2017 of the RTC in Criminal Case No. L-10992 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION in that the award of temperate damages is
INCREASED to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 15

Now before us, the People and Guarin manifested that they would no
longer file a Supplemental Brief, taking into account the thorough and
substantial discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs before
the CA.
The Court resolves to dismiss the appeal for failure to sufficiently show
reversible error in the judgment of conviction to warrant the exercise of our
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 appellate jurisdiction.
Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659. To successfully prosecute the crime, the
following elements must be established: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that
the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that
the killing is not parricide or infanticide. 16 In the instant case, the
prosecution was able to establish that (1) Manaois was stabbed and killed;
(2) Guarin stabbed and killed him; (3) the killing of Manaois was attended by
the qualifying circumstance of treachery; and (4) the killing of Manaois was
neither parricide nor infanticide. We agree with the trial court's finding that
the prosecution has proven Guarin's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the
first element of the offense was proven by presenting the Certificate of
Death 17 of Manaois. The RTC correctly held in its Decision that Dr. Arenas
sufficiently testified that Manaois sustained multiple stab wounds in the
chest, upper extremities and abdomen; that the cause of the latter's death
was due to cardio-pulmonary arrest, multi-organ failure secondary to severe
blood loss; and that these findings were not rebutted by the defense.
Meanwhile, the other elements thereof were substantiated by Botial. In
addition, the fact that Guarin invoked the justifying circumstance of self-
defense is already an admission that he authored the killing of Manaois.
Considering that self-defense is an affirmative allegation and totally
exonerates the accused from any criminal liability, it is well settled that
when it is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove it
by credible, clear, and convincing evidence. The accused, claiming self-
defense, must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of the prosecution. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated
when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is
extremely doubtful by itself. 18
The essential elements of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. To invoke self-
defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked
attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict
severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist
the attack. 19
While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies first and
foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no
unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded.
Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding the justifying
circumstance of self-defense; if there is nothing to prevent or repel, the
other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis. 20
In the present case, it is apparent that there is no unlawful aggression.
Botial, an eyewitness, vividly narrated that at the time of the attack, he and
Manaois were occupied in preparing their things in going to work. Manaois,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 at the time of the attack, was about to put the key in the ignition when
Guarin unexpectedly stabbed him with a knife. After the initial attack,
Manaois tried to flee but Guarin was determined to kill him. Guarin was able
to chase Manaois and stabbed him several times.
Meanwhile, Guarin claims a different version. He maintains that on his
way to the store, he saw Manaois suddenly draw a knife and tried to stab
him. During the attack, he was able to step back, thus, Manaois was not able
to hit him. For the second time, Manaois tried to stab Guarin but the former
fell on the ground. At this instance, Guarin took the knife away from Manaois
and claimed that he blacked out. Afterwards, when Guarin regained his
senses, he had blood stains all over his clothes and was holding a bloodied
knife.
Even assuming that the version of facts averred by Guarin is given
credence, his claim of self-defense is still wanting. "When an unlawful
aggression that has begun no longer exists, the one who resorts to self-
defense has no right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. To be sure,
when the present victim no longer persisted in his purpose or action to the
extent that the object of his attack was no longer in peril, there was no more
unlawful aggression that would warrant legal self-defense on the part of the
offender." 21 Undoubtedly, the unlawful aggression ceased when Manaois fell
on the ground and Guarin successfully disarmed him.
Guarin went beyond the call of self-preservation when he proceeded to
inflict excessive, atrocious, and fatal injuries to Manaois. Assuming, for the
sake of argument, that there was unlawful aggression, the second element
of self-defense is not present. The means employed by Guarin was not
reasonably commensurate to the nature and extent of the alleged attack
that he sought to prevent. Records show that Manaois sustained a total of
sixteen (16) injuries, twelve (12) of which were stab wounds, concentrated
on the area of the heart and his other vital organs, and the other four (4)
were abrasions and contusions, 22 while Guarin sustained no injury. We have
held in the past that the nature and number of wounds are constantly and
unremittingly considered important indicia which disprove a plea of self-
defense. 23
Based from the foregoing, the inevitable conclusion is that the
assertion of self-defense by Guarin cannot stand, absent the elements that
must be proven to have a successful invocation of self-defense.
Now, it has been established that Guarin stabbed and killed Manaois
without the justifying circumstance of self-defense. The other question to be
resolved is whether or not the killing was attended by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery. Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC defines
treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution
of the crime against a person which tend directly and specially to ensure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden attack
by the aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the
aggressor arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 24
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must
be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself or to retaliate or escape; and (2) the accused consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack
employed by him. 25
In the instant case, Guarin's attack on Manaois was sudden and
unexpected. Manaois, who was then about to board his tricycle with his eyes
focused on starting its engine, was not aware of any impending danger.
Likewise, he was unarmed and his defenses were down. Hence, he was
caught off guard when Guarin stabbed him. The stealth and swiftness by
which the attack was carried out rendered Manaois defenseless, and
significantly diminished the risk for Guarin to receive retaliation from the
victim. Even if Manaois was able to briefly run away after being hit, he was
still pursued by Guarin who continued stabbing him. In addition, Botial
testified that Guarin was already holding a knife when the latter was
approaching them. Hence, the attack was planned ahead of time. Clearly,
the prosecution has established that the qualifying circumstance of
treachery is present.
On the other issue, Guarin assails the RTC's reliance on the testimony
of Botial, claiming that his testimony was doubtful and not worthy of full faith
and credit. In support, Guarin imputes that Botial's failure to warn Manaois or
shout for help is contrary to human experience and that it is not common,
thus, not credible.
We are not persuaded.
The fact that Botial failed to warn Manaois or shout for help during the
incident does not make his testimony highly suspicious as Guarin would want
it to appear. Such reaction was not at all uncommon or unnatural so as to
make his testimony incredible. Placed in the same or similar situation, some
may choose to intervene, but others may opt to stay away and remain
hidden. It is settled that there could be no hard and fast gauge for
measuring a person's reaction or behavior when confronted with a startling,
not to mention horrifying, occurrence, as in this case. Witnesses of startling
occurrences react differently depending upon their situation and state of
mind, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when
one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. The
workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are
unpredictable, and people react differently to shocking stimulus — some
may shout, some may faint, and others may be plunged into insensibility. 26
The trial court finds no reason not to believe the testimony of Botial.
Absence of any controverting evidence that the identification and
recollection made by Botial were wrongly made or, otherwise, ill-motivated,
they deserve full faith and credit.
The Court defers to the trial court in this respect, especially considering
that it was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 witnesses presented by both parties. When the issues revolve on matters of
credibility of witnesses, the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of
the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight
thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded
high respect, if not conclusive effect because the trial court has the unique
opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position
to discern whether they are telling the truth. Having had the opportunity to
observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the
manner in which they gave their testimonies, the trial judge can better
determine if such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal position
to weigh conflicting testimonies. 27
The CA and the RTC correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender in favor of Guarin. Voluntary surrender is a
circumstance that reduces the penalty for the offense. Its requisites as a
mitigating circumstance are that: (1) the accused has not been actually
arrested; (2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the
latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. 28
All the requisites of voluntary surrender were proven by Guarin. The
established facts show that immediately after the incident, Guarin voluntarily
surrendered himself and the weapon to Barangay Kagawad Rosario after
realizing that he had hurt Manaois. In turn, Barangay Kagawad Rosario
reported the incident to the police and endorsed him to their custody upon
information that it was Guarin who killed Manaois. It is clear that there was a
manifestation on the part of Guarin to freely submit himself to the barangay
official, Barangay Kagawad Rosario, and to the police authorities for the
killing of Manaois.
Hence, as to the penalty, this Court agrees with the CA and the RTC in
imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with the provisions
of Article 248 of the RPC, in relation to Article 63 of the same code.
Moreover, consistent with People v. Jugueta , 29 the CA and the RTC
correctly ordered Guarin to pay the heirs of Manaois the amounts of
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages. Meanwhile, the CA
appropriately increased the amount of temperate damages from Twenty-
Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), in
accordance with the Court's pronouncement in People v. Jugueta. 30 It cannot
be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss, although the
exact amount was not proven. Thus, the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) shall be awarded.
An interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed
on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this Decision until fully
paid. 31
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 30, 2018
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09494, convicting
Edgar Guarin y Veloso of Murder, is hereby AFFIRMED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 SO ORDERED.
Caguioa, Carandang, Zalameda and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 3-17. Penned by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza, with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
2. CA rollo, pp. 50-59. Penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr.
3. Records, p. 1.
4. Id. at 20.
5. CA rollo, pp. 50-51.

6. Id. at 52.
7. Id. at 51.
8. Id.
9. Records, p. 9.
10. CA rollo, pp. 51-52.

11. Id. at 52-53.

12. Id. at 53.
13. Id. at 59.
14. Id. at 55; citation omitted.

15. Rollo , p. 16.

16. Johnny Garcia Yap v. People , G.R. No. 234217, November 14, 2018; and People
v. Racal, 817 Phil. 665, 677 (2017).
17. Records, p. 11.
18. People v. Tica , 817 Phil. 588, 594-595 (2017).
19. Id. at 595.
20. Id. at 595-596.

21. Id. at 596.

22. Records, pp. 61-61A.
23. People v. Tica , 817 Phil. 588, 597 (2017).
24. People v. Joseph Ampo, G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019.
25. Id.

26. Id.
27. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 28. People v. Placer , 719 Phil. 268, 281-282 (2013).
29. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
30. Id.

31. See Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, effective July
1, 2013, in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267, 279-281 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]