Case 15 of 20

CRIMINAL LAW 1
SY 2019-2020 1ST Semester
Professor: Atty. Pahm

G.R. No. 193134

March 2, 2016
RAFEL NADYHAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
Ponente: PEREZ, J

GIST
For review is the decision of the Courts of Appeals dated December 17, 2008 affirming
the judgment dated February 5, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34 of Lagawe,
Ifugao finding petitioner RAFAEL NADYAHAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.
INFORMATION
ABRIDGED:
On the evening of May 26, 2004, at Banaue, Ifugao, the accused armed with a knife and
with intent to kill DID then and there unlawfully, and feloniously attack and stab one MARK
ANTHONY D. PAGADDUT inflicting mortal stab wounds on his body that caused his DEATH.

FACTS

 Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge, defending the crime to be a self-defense
 Reverse trial was conducted with the defense presenting its evidence first
 Witness (Defense): Petitioner himself as the principal witness and Pedro Banwag
 Witnesses (Prosecution):
1. Pedro Banwag
2. Marcial Acangan
3. Elias Nabejet
DEFENSE
In the evening of May 26, 2004, petitioner was driving his motorcycle with MARK APILIS
at his back when they were flagged down at the marker of the junction road by MARCIAL
ACANGAN, accompanied by ELIAS NABEJET, MORENO BINWAG and MARK
PAGADDUT. Acangan slapped the forehead and kicked the foot of the petitioner when the
latter refused to treat Acangan to drink. The petitioner was prepared to fight Acangan but
fled when he saw the latter’s companion picked up pieces of wood. But he was hit at the
back by Nabejet before he could leave so petitioner impulsively took out his knife and ran
towards the direction of his house where he was chased.
Petitioner met PEDRO BINWAG and managed to ask him why his group was ganging
up with him when PAGADDUT hit him with a belt buckle. He was already losing
consciousness when he thrust his knife and stabbed Pagaddut. Petitioner met APILIS who
was driving his motorcycle, took the motorcycle when the latter refused to go with him and
proceeded towards the house of a congressman.
Petitioner spent four days in Barangay O-ong before treating his wounds then finally
came back to Ifugao to surrender.
Pgaddut was brought to the hospital but he eventually DIED. The victim suffered THREE
stab wounds on the chest, at the base of the right side of the neck, and on the right upper
arm.
PROSECUTION
According to Witness (PEDRO BINWAG):

Summary by: R. Angkal

Date: 07-18-2019 Page 1
 Case 15 of 20
CRIMINAL LAW 1
SY 2019-2020 1ST Semester
Professor: Atty. Pahm
 He saw the commotion while waiting for a jeepney near the junction road but immediately
left the area after sensing danger. He testified with accordance to the petitioner’s defense
ONLY THAT he was not able to identify the persons.

According to Witness (MARCIAL ACANGAN and ELIAS NABEJET):

 Portrayed as the aggressor in their version
Acangan- “petitioner turned his ire on Pagaddut and stabbed his upper right buttock”
Nabejet- “he saw petitioner stab pagaddut in the back causing the latter to fall down”

RULING
 The trial court lent credence to the version of the defense that the petitioner is not the
aggressor
 The court found out that there is an incomplete self-defense on the part of the petitioner.
Particularly the trial court ruled that based on the wounds sustained by the victim, the means
used by petitioner to prevent or repel the attack was not reasonable.
 In the imposition of penalty, the trial court considered incomplete self-defense as a
privileged mitigating circumstance and voluntary surrender as an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

On December 17, 2009

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide
Citation: Art. 69 of Rev. Penal Code
Imprisonment of FOUR YEARS AND TWO MONTHS of prison correccional medium
To pay 50,000 as civil indemnity

ISSUES
Petitioner maintains that the court a quo gravely erred in:
1. Ruling that there is an INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE; and

2. Sustaining the PENALTY imposed by trial court without considering the circumstances
favorable to the accused.

RULING

 Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) Comment:

Recommends the modification of the penalty to arresto mayor in its minimum period to
prison correccional minimum.

 The court gives more weight to the account that the accused was NOT the aggressor

Inconsistencies of the testimonies given by the two witnesses (Acangan and Nabejet) to the
testimony of Dr. Ligot stating that there was no stab wound on the lower back portion of the
victim, and that the injuries sustained by the victim were frontal wounds.

 The court concludes that the oral testimony of Marcial Acangan is not credible and he
adapted it from the story narrated by the other witnesses.

Summary by: R. Angkal

Date: 07-18-2019 Page 2
 Case 15 of 20
CRIMINAL LAW 1
SY 2019-2020 1ST Semester
Professor: Atty. Pahm
Not one of the prosecution witnesses had seen the exchange of blows between the accused
and the victim. The prosecution evidence failed to prove the detail on how the stabbing took
place that lead to the death of the victim. The witnesses for the prosecution were not around to
see what happened

 The court rules and so holds that there was NO sufficient provocation on the part of the
accused to invite the attack from Marcial Acangan and his companions.

His subsequent refusal or failure to buy drinks as requested definitely is not sufficient
provocation for the attack by the group of the victim.

 As cited by the Appellate Court, the means employed by the petitioner invoking self-
defense is NOT REASONABLE. The negating circumstances are:
1. Intrinsic disproportion between a knife and a belt buckle
2. Physical evidence suffered between the petitioner and the victim when the former
only had a lacerated wound on the forehead while the victim have been inflicted with
successive stabs.
3. The victim and his companions were already drunk so the use of the belt buckle and
a piece of wood might have been a potent weapon in the hands of a drunk wielder.
4. The depth of the wounds sustained by the victim shows the force exerted in the
petitioner’s thrusts while the locations are indicative that the thrusts were all meant to
kill, not merely disable the victim, and thereby avoid his drunken thrusts.

 In sum, there is NO ERROR found in the Court of Appeal’s ruling with respect to
incomplete self-defense to warrant its reversal

 The trial court CORRECTLY sentenced petitioner to four years and two months of as
minimum to eight years of prison mayor minimum as maximum
Art. 249 of Rev. Penal Code: Homicide
the penalty of reclusion temporal- 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
Art. 69 of Rev. Penal Code: privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense
The penalty should be one degree lower or from reclusion temporal to prison mayor to be
imposed in its minimum period considering the presence of ordinary mitigating circumstances of
voluntary surrender.
Indeterminate Sentence Law
Maximum of penalty shall be prison mayor minimum, the proper period after considering the
mitigating circumstance, which has a range of six years and one day to eight years.
Minimum penalty is the penalty next lower in degree which is six months and one day to six
years.

SUPREME COURT

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 31643 dated December 17, 2009 nd July 21, 2010, respectively, are
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

Summary by: R. Angkal

Date: 07-18-2019 Page 3