Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

008 PEOPLE v.

MANINGDING (NAPA) Prosecution


14 Sept 2011 | Velasco, Jr. J. | Treachery 3. During trial, Aladino (owner of sari sari store with a karaoke) testified:
a. While he was tending the sari sari store, he noticed Rommel and
Marlon (they are both David’s brother-in-law) conversing with each
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES other, while seated on a bench beside his store.
ACCUSED-APPELLANT: DAVID MANINGDING b. David just kept quiet and then suddenly stabbed Marlon by the
armpit, Marlon shouted due to the pain, Maningding ranaway
c. Aladino testified that he was one meter away from the incident, just
SUMMARY: David Maningding is convicted of murder of Marlon Muyalde. The
right beside his sari sari store.
testimonies of the eyewitnesses: Aladino, owner of the sari sari store near where
4. Dr. De Guzman also testified:
the incident happened, and Rommel, brother-in-law of Maningding. Aladino and
a. Marlon was already experiencing shock because of the wound.
Rommel said that Maningding was quiet when Rommel and Marlon greeted him;
Then, while on surgery Marlon went on a cardiopulmonary arrest
then Maningding suddenly raised the right arm of Marlon stabbed him. The doctor
b. He died of hypovolemic shock due massive loss of blood. He
who attended him said that the stab was fatal and Marlon died of shock due to
testified that the injury was fatal and that the liver was lacerated.
hypovolemic blood loss. The RTC convicted Maningding and found treachery and
5. Next testimony is from Rommel, the brother in law of David Maningding:
the CA upheld the RTC’s findings. Also, CA it held that there is no unlawful
a. Mandy Molina was singing with the videoke in front of Aladino’s
aggression and upheld that RTC and existence of treachery (Ang labo kasi wala sa
store.
facts na ever nag allege si Maningding ng self-defense, so baka sa appeal niya ni-
b. He and the victim were engaged in the conversation facing each
raise).
other. They both greeted the David. Then he suddenly raised
ISSUE1: Whether RTC and CA was correct in convicting Maningding of the crime Marlon’s right arm and pulled the knife and ranaway. Marlon was
charged with treachery? YES – the factual determination of the RTC shall not then rushed to the hospital.
be disturbed; further, given the circumstances Maningding acted with 6. The wife of Marlon, Gloria, was witness to establish the civil liability of
treachery when he attacked Marlon without any warning and so suddenly. David Maningding. She stated that the deceased was gainfully employed as
MANINGDING is without any warning or suspicion, and taking advantage of the a farmer
circumstances, immediately attacked the victim. Marlon did not have any suspicion
Defense
that could have alerted him of the impending attack. As clearly demonstrated in the
trial court, the attack was swift and unexpected. 7. On Sep 13, 10:25PM, Maningding was on his way home carrying passengers
with his tricycle when he saw the victim with 4 other people at the sari sari
ISSUE2: Whether CA was correct that the act committed was not justified of self-
store of Aladino.
defense? YES - Maningding failed to establish that his acts were justified; his
8. Maningding said that he was actually invited by Marlon then embraced him
only evidence is his testimony. In self-defense, an accused admits the commission
by extending his arm to his right hand, which he was able to grab. As he was
of the act of killing. The burden of evidence, therefore, shifts to the accused’s side
being embraced by Marlon at such time and since they both fell, then he
in clearly and convincingly proving that the elements of self- defense exist.
didn’t know was able to stab Marlon.
Lower Courts’ rulings
DOCTRINE: There is treachery when “the offender commits any of the crimes
9. RTC convicted the accused giving credence to the testimonies of Romme and
against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend
Aladino. RTC held that Maningding’s calmness negated the running away
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising
testimony. Additionally, Contrary to Maningding’s testimony in the Medical
from the defense which the offended party might take
Certificate, Marlon was not intoxicated of alcohol.
10. RTC found treachery.
FACTS: 11. In the CA it held that there is no unlawful aggression and upheld that RTC
1. Information reads alleged that: On Sep 13, 2006 at 10:25PM in Pangasinan and existence of treachery (Ang labo kasi wala sa facts na ever nag allege si
DAVID MANINGDING while armed in a bladed weapen with intent to kill Maningding ng self-defense, so baka sa appeal niya ni-raise).
and with treachery attacked, stab and hit MARLON MUYALDE inflicting
stab wound on vital part of his body causing ultimately his death. ISSUE/s:
2. MANINGDING pleaded not guilty. 1. Whether RTC and CA was correct in convicting Maningding of the crime
charged with treachery? YES – the factual determination of the RTC shall
not be disturbed; further, given the circumstances Maningding acted 5. The first requisite of self-defense is absent. (Unlawful Aggression)
with treachery when he attacked Marlon without any warning and so a. “Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at
suddenly. least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case
2. Whether CA was correct that the act committed was not justified of self- of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the
defense? YES - Maningding failed to establish that his acts were wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden,
justified; his only evidence is his testimony. unexpected or imminent danger—not merely threatening and
intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces
RULING: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby real and immediate threat to one’s life.”
rendered finding the accused, David Maningding, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of MURDER. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
Treachery exists in the present case
RECLUSION PERPETUA and is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the late Marlon
Muyalde the sum of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, 6. There is treachery when “the offender commits any of the crimes against
PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages, PhP 33,180 as actual damages, and interest on all persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend
damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender
fully paid. arising from the defense which the offended party might take.
7. In the review of the testimonies, the SC in convinced that there is treachery:
RATIO: a. Aladino testimony: “When Marlon Muyalde was already standing
David Maningding raised the right hand of Marlon and instantly
The factual determination of the RTC should be afforded full faith and credit stabbed his armpit.”
1. As previously held by the SC: “the trial court’s assessment of the credibility i. SC also emphasized that the Marlon and David
of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality.” Maningding is standing very close to each other and the
2. where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted latter is just quiet.
some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do not b. Rommel testimony: “After my brother greeted him good evening
disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the credibility of the kuya and he did not answer, what he did he got hold of the right hand
witnesses. This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who of my brother, raised it and then he made a thrust using his left hand”
personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their demeanor
as well as the manner in which they testified during trial. Accordingly, the 8. From the testimonies of Aladino and Rommel, it cannot be gainsaid that
trial court, or more particularly, the RTC in this case, is in a better position to MANINGDING is without any warning or suspicion, and taking advantage
assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial. of the circumstances, immediately attacked the victim. Marlon did not have
any suspicion that could have alerted him of the impending attack. As clearly
3. In this case, We see no reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC as demonstrated in the trial court, the attack was swift and unexpected, even to
affirmed by the CA. Neither a misinterpretation of the material facts nor a the eyewitnesses, Aladino and Rommel.
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC is existent or apparent from
the facts of the case.
Liability for damages and interest
Self-defense does not exist. 9. Following their previous ruling the SC (People v. Combate): when the
circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion
4. it is a settled rule that when an accused claims the justifying circumstance of perpetua only, the Court has ruled that the proper amounts should be PhP
self-defense, an accused admits the commission of the act of killing. The 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000.00 as moral damages, and PhP
burden of evidence, therefore, shifts to the accused’s side in clearly and 30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
convincingly proving that the elements of self- defense exist.
a. In this considering that at the outset, MANINGDING has already
maintained a claim of self-defense, the burden of evidence rests
upon him in proving his act of stabbing as justifiable under the
circumstances.
b. MANINGDING failed to establish any proof of self-defense. The
SC finds it worse that the sole evidence is his testimony.