Criminal Law: People v So Case Digest (Self Defense, Treachery, and Insanity)

G.R. No. 104664 August 28, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.

ELYBOY SO Y ORBES, accused-appellant.

KAPUNAN, J.:

FACTS: On June 2, 1991, Elyboy So along with his cousins, Esteban, Edgar, Ronnie, Emy and a particular Mario Tuquero who was then Emy’s boyfriend was having a drinking spree. After which, Elyboy had a misunderstanding and altercation with somebody and he was shouting loudly, disturbing the neighbors in the process. After pacifying the protagonists, Mario advised Elyboy to go home because his loud voice was disturbing the neighbors.

The following day, as Mario and Emy was a waiting a taxi on their way to fairview to pick up a car which Mario owned. Elyboy suddenly appeared from behind and stabbed Mario at the back several times with an eleven inch fan knife with a white handle. When Mario was about to run, he slid and fell to the ground lying on his back. Elyboy took advantage of this circumstance and repeatedly stabbed Mario on the front part of his body. Elyboy fled from the scene of the crime and ran to a dark alley

Appellant vehemently opposed the version of the prosecution. According to him, he felt aggrieved as he recalled the time when he lived with Esteban So and his family and was driven out by them. He was told that his only link to them is the surname "So". Then when Esteban So pulled a knife and Edgar So broke bottles of beer and Mario Tuquero pulled out "something" from his socks, appellant, fearing for his life, fled. Appellant claims that Esteban So and Mario Tuquero chased him but were not able to catch him

Appellant further narrated that when he tried to go back to his cousin's house and talk to them, he met Mario Tuquero and Emy So at the corner of Pureza and Magsaysay Streets. Suddenly Mario Tuquero attacked him with a knife but because Tuquero's thrust was slow, he was able to evade it. He grabbed the knife and proceeded to stab Tuquero repeatedly. He ignored the pleas of Emy So but finally stopped when four (4) persons in a jeep passed by and shouted at him. He ran into a dark alley until the police came and brought him to the police precinct.

ISSUE:

1. WON there was Self-Defense in the instant case
2. WON the aggravating circumstance of treachery is present
3. WON there the exempting circumstance of insanity is present

HELD: 

1. NO, Even if we allow appellant's contention that Tuquero was the initial unlawful aggressor, we still cannot sustain his plea of self-defense. After appellant successfully wrested the knife from Tuquero, the unlawful aggression had ceased. After the unlawful aggression has ceased, the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. Appellant's claim of self-defense is, likewise, contradicted and negated by the physical evidence on record. The victim sustained eighteen (18) stab wounds on different parts of his body. Of the eighteen (18), four (4) were fatal stab wounds. The presence of a large number of wounds on the part of the victim, their nature and location disprove self-defense and instead indicate a determined effort to kill the victim.

2. YES, Considering the number and nature of the wounds inflicted by appellant on the victim, the testimony of the prosecution witness Emy So that appellant unexpectedly and suddenly attacked the victim from behind and the fact that appellant suffered not a single injury, we agree with the trial court that the killing was attended by treachery. This clearly illustrates that appellant, in the commission of the crime, employed means, methods and form in its execution which tended directly, and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might make

3. NO, The law presumes every man to be sane. A person accused of a crime who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity has the burden of proving it. In order that insanity may be taken as an exempting circumstance, there must be complete depreciation of intelligence in the commission of the act or that the accused acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability. The testimony of Dr. Omer Galvez, Chief of the Child & Adolescent Service of the National Center For Mental Health (NCMH) and attending physician of appellant when he was confined at the National Center for Mental Health from June 8, 1985 to December 2, 1985, only established the previous confinement of appellant at the NCMH and that appellant showed signs of psychosis or insanity at the time.