G.R. No. 184601. November 12, 2012.

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

MALICDEM y MOLINA, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

The RTC summarized the testimonies of Bernardo and Joel in open court as follows:
As a practice after their dinner, Mr. Malicdem the accused-appellant met the group
of Wilson Molina near the artesian well. The accused-appellant asked them if they
knew where his godson, Rogelio Molina (Rogelio) is. The group answered in a
negative and sarcastic manner. They noticed that the accused-appellant was drunk.
The accused-appellant again asked them the same question. As they stood to leave,
the accused-appellant suddenly embraced Wilson and stabbed him with a knife to
the left part of his chest. When the accused-appellant moved to strike again, Wilson
was able to deflect this blow which resulted to a cut on his right arm. Intending to
help his friend, Bernardo was hit by the knife in his stomach. In the course of aiding
Wilson, Joel boxed the appellant. During the brawl, Francisco Molina, Rogelio’s
father, arrived at the scene, but was stabbed in the stomach by the accused-
appellant. The accused-appellant ran away after that incident. Joel immediately
brought Wilson to the hospital but the latter was declared dead on arrival.

The testimonies of appellant and Anabel are here as follows:

On the night of the incident the accused-appellant was looking after their
children, while Anabel was cooking dinner. When Anabel informed the accused-
appellant that dinner was ready, he and Anabel went out to look for his godson,
Rogelio. They went to the house of Rogelio’s parents to look for the latter. Rogelio
was not there so his mother advised them to look for him outside. On their way
home, the couple met the group of Wilson who were loitering in the artisan well.
The accused-appellant inquired from the three if they had seen Rogelio. Bernardo,
allegedly, sarcastically replied “No, we have not seen him. Why do you look for
him here, you have your eyes, you have your feet.” Based on the observation of
the accused-appellant the three were drunk, allegedly Bernardo struck him by a
bottle. The accused-appellant tried to block the blow but the bottle still hit him.
Because of that a fist fight starts to happen between him and Bernardo. Joel and
Wilson stationed themselves on different sides of the appellant. Anabel allegedly
saw Wilson drawing a knife so she shouted a warning to her husband. When Wilson
was near enough, the accused-appellant grabbed Wilson’s arm and grappled with
him for possession of the knife. While this was going on, Bernardo joined the melee
and proceeded to repeatedly punch the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant
made a move causing Bernardo to be hit by the knife held by Wilson in the stomach.
Still grappling for possession of the knife with Wilson, Francisco Molina, Rogelio’s
father, arrived and tried to pacify the combatants. The accused-appellant hit
Francisco on the cheek.
On cross examination, the accused-appellant stated that after Bernardo was hit
with the knife, there was a continued grappling for the knife. Finally, accused-
appellant was able to throw Wilson to the ground. He said that the knife did not fall
to the ground but was held by Wilson. Unfortunately, when Wilson was thrown to the
ground, he fell on the knife he was still holding.

The RTC, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder,
declaring that the prosecution was able to prove clearly and convincingly that the accused-
appellant killed Wilson not in self-defense. That sudden attack on Wilson by accused-
appellant without the former having an inkling of the evil act of appellant and opportunity
to defend himself constitute the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery.

Aggrieved, the accused-appellant filed a notice to appeal. The same was given due
course.

The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the accused can invoke self-defense which would warrant his
acquittal

HELD:

1. No. The Supreme Court agreed that the death of Wilson at the hands of
appellant was not occasioned by self-defense. For this Court to consider self-
defense as a justifying circumstance, appellant has to prove the following
essential elements: (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 resorting to self-
defense.23 The Court has repeatedly stated that a person who invokes self-
defense has the burden to prove all the aforesaid elements. The Court also
considers unlawful aggression on the part of the victim as the most important
of these elements. Thus, unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for
self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. Two
kinds of Unlawful Aggression: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b)
imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an
attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines
the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means
an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and
positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a
knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be
a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip
where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming
to throw a pot.