People of the Philippines vs. Melanio Nugas; G.R. No.

172606

G.R. No. 172606                                November 23, 2011

Facts:
On March 26, 1997, at about 9:00 in the evening , Glen Remigio (Glen), his wife, Nila Remigio
(Nila), and their two young children, Raymond and Genevieve, were traveling on board their
family vehicle, a Tamaraw FX, along Marcos Highway in COGEO, Antipolo, Rizal. Glen was
driving, while Nila sat to his extreme right because their children sat between them. They picked
up two hitch hikers, named Nugas and Araneta, when they passed a village. Later, the hitch
hikers pointed knives at Glen and Nila’s necks demanding that they be brought to Sta. Lucia
Mall. Upon the vehicle reaching Kingsville Village, the man behind Glen suddenly stabbed Glen
on the neck. Thereafter, the two men alighted and fled. Despite undergoing treatment, Glen
died and his body was brought for autopsy which revealed that Glen had sustained a fatal stab
wound on the left side of his neck. It was opined that the position of the stab wound would
suggest that had the assailant used his left hand, he was probably directly behind the victim.
During trial, Nila identified Nugas as the person who had sat behind her husband and who had
stabbed her husband in the neck, and Araneta as the person who had sat behind her and who
had carried the maroon plastic bag that she had later recovered from the backseat.Admitting
having stabbed Glen, Nugas maintained that he did so in self-defense. He claimed that the
Tamaraw FX driven by Glen was a passenger taxi, not a family vehicle; that when he was about
to alight in front of Rempson Supermarket after arguing with Glen on the overcharged fees,
Glen punched him and leaned forward as if to get something from his clutch bag that was on the
dashboard; that thinking that Glen was reaching for a gun inside the clutch bag, he stabbed
Glen with his left hand from where he was seated in order to protect himself (Inunahan ko na
sya); and that when asked why he carried a knife, he replied that he needed the knife for
protection because he was living in a squatter’s area. The RTC found Nungas guilty of murder
beyond reasonable doubt and CA affirmed the decision of RTC.

Issue:

Whether there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim as to justify self-defense.

Ruling:

No. There was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim as to justify self-defense.
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying
circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in
defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is
whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person
defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat.

Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful
aggression, namely:(a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault;(b) the attack or
assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and(c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (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.

In the case, Nugas did not credibly establish that Glen had first punched him and then
reached for his clutch bag on the dashboard, making Nugas believe that he had a gun there.
Nugas admitted not actually seeing if Glen had a gun in his clutch bag. It is also highly
improbable that the victim, in relation to accused-appellant Nugas position, can launch an
attack against the latter. First, the victim was at the driver’s seat and seated between him were
his wife and two children. Second, the victim was driving the FX vehicle. Third, accused-
appellant Nugas was seated directly behind the victim. All things considered, it is highly
improbable, nay risky for the victim’s family, for him to launch an attack. Consequently, Nugas
had absolutely no basis for pleading self-defense because he had not been subjected to either
actual or imminent threat to his life. He had nothing to prevent or to repel considering that Glen
committed no unlawful aggression towards him.

With unlawful aggression, the indispensable foundation of self-defense, not having been
established by Nugas, it is superfluous to still determine whether the remaining requisites of
self-defense were attendant. As the Court made clear in People v. Carrero: Unlawful aggression
is the main and most essential element to support the theory of self-defense and the complete
or incomplete exemption from criminal liability; without such primal requisite it is not possible to
maintain that a person acted in self-defense within the terms under which unlawful aggression is
subordinate to the other two conditions named in article 8, No. 4, of the Penal Code. When an
act of aggression is in response to an insult, affront, or threat, it cannot be considered as a
defense but as the punishment which the injured party inflicts on the author of the provocation,
and in such a case the courts can at most consider it as a mitigating circumstance, but never as
a reason for exemption, except in violation of the provisions of the Penal Code.The Supreme
Court find Melanio Nugas y Mapait guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 172606 November 23, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MELANIO NUGAS y MAPAIT, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

Self-defense is often readily claimed by an accused even if false. It is time, then, to remind the
Defense about the requisites of the justifying circumstance and about the duty of the Defense to
establish the requisites by credible, clear and convincing evidence.

Melanio Nugas y Mapait appeals the decision promulgated on March 8, 2006, 1 whereby the
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed his conviction for murder under the decision rendered on August
17, 2000 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, in Antipolo City (RTC).

Antecedents
On June 25, 1997, the Office of Provincial Prosecutor in Antipolo City charged Jonie Araneta y
Nugas (Araneta) with murder committed as follows:

That on or about the 26th day of March 1997, in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
intent to kill, armed with a bladed weapon, conspiring and confederating with an unidentified
male person, whose true identity and present whereabout is still unknown, with treachery and
taking advantage of their superior strength, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said bladed weapon one Glen Remigio y Santos
hitting the latter on the left neck, thereby inflicting upon him mortal stab wound which directly
caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.2

On April 7, 1998, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, learning of the identity of the
unidentified male co-conspirator of Araneta as Melanio Nugas y Mapait (Nugas), amended the
information to include Nugas as a co-principal, to wit:

That on or about the 26th day of March, 1997, in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, armed with
a bladed weapon, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, and taking advantage of
superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab
with the said bladed weapon one Glen Remegio y Santos hitting the latter on the left neck,
thereby inflicting upon him mortal stab wound which directly caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Upon arraignment on June 9, 1998, Araneta and Nugas, both assisted by counsel de officio,
voluntarily and spontaneously pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.4

In the course of the presentation of evidence for the Defense, Araneta manifested his
willingness to change his plea, and to enter a plea of guilty as an accomplice in homicide. On
July 19, 1999, the RTC approved his offer to change plea. The plea bargaining was with the
conformity of the State Prosecutor and the heirs of the victim. Thus, after ensuring that Araneta
had understood the consequences of his new plea of guilty, the RTC allowed him to enter a new
plea. He was subsequently duly convicted as an accomplice in homicide and sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional,
as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.5

The trial proceeded against Nugas.

Evidence of the Prosecution

On March 26, 1997, at about 9:00 in the evening, Glen Remigio (Glen), his wife, Nila Remigio
(Nila), and their two children, Raymond and Genevieve, then 11- and 6-years old, respectively,
were traveling on board their family vehicle, a Tamaraw FX, along Marcos Highway in COGEO,
Antipolo, Rizal. Glen was driving, while Nila sat to his extreme right because their children sat
between them. While they were passing along Carolina Village, two men waved at them
signalling their request to hitch a ride. Glen accommodated the two men, one of whom was
carrying a maroon plastic bag, allowing them to board the vehicle at the rear. When the vehicle
neared Masinag Market, the two men suddenly brandished knives that each pointed at Glen’s
and Nila’s necks, warning them not to make any wrong move if they did not want to be harmed.
Considering that the two men demanded to be brought to Sta. Lucia Mall, Glen continued
driving the vehicle. Upon the vehicle reaching Kingsville Village, the man behind Glen suddenly
stabbed Glen on the neck. Thereafter, the two men alighted and fled. Glen pulled the knife from
his neck and handed it to Nila. He drove to the nearest hospital, but he collapsed on the way
and lost control of the vehicle, causing it to run over two pedestrians, one of whom died and the
other suffered a broken arm. Once the vehicle hit the railings of a gas station, Nila cried for help.
Concerned citizens immediately rushed Glen to the nearest hospital, which was about 50 to 60
meters away. Nila stayed behind to look after their children. When she checked the vehicle, she
found the knife, its scabbard, and the maroon plastic bag left by the assailants at the rear of the
vehicle. She gathered the articles and later turned them over to the police officer in charge of
the investigation. The maroon plastic bag was found to contain the following items: a National
Bureau of Investigation clearance,6 a police clearance,7 Social Security System papers,8 and
official receipts,9 all issued in the name of Araneta, a stainless fork knuckle, and a bunch of
keys.

Despite undergoing treatment, Glen succumbed,10 and his body was brought for autopsy to the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. The autopsy revealed that Glen had sustained a
fatal stab wound on the left side of his neck originating from the front and going towards the
back and downwards towards the center of his body, piercing the apex of the left lung and
transecting the left common carotid artery; that the stab wound had been inflicted by a single
bladed weapon; and that the immediate cause of his death was the hemorrhage resulting from
the stab wound.11 It was opined that the position of the stab wound would suggest that had the
assailant used his left hand, he was probably directly behind the victim; but had he used his
right hand, he had to be somewhere to the extreme left of the victim.

During trial, Nila identified Nugas as the person who had sat behind her husband and who had
stabbed her husband in the neck, and Araneta as the person who had sat behind her and who
had carried the maroon plastic bag that she had later recovered from the backseat.

Other witnesses presented were the investigating police officer, the medico-legal officer who
had performed the autopsy, and Atty. Jose S. Diloy, the lawyer who had assisted Araneta in
executing a sworn statement pointing to Nugas, his own uncle, as the person who had stabbed
the driver of the vehicle they were riding on March 26, 1997.

The State adduced object and documentary evidence, including the knife, the maroon plastic
bag and all its contents, Medico Legal Report No. M-0406-97, 12 and the sworn statement of
Araneta.13

Evidence of Nugas

Albeit admitting having stabbed Glen, Nugas maintained that he did so in self-defense. He
claimed that the Tamaraw FX driven by Glen was a passenger taxi, not a family vehicle; that
when he and Araneta boarded the vehicle at Gate 1 in COGEO, Antipolo, about four other
passengers were already on board; that he argued with Glen about the fare, because Glen was
overcharging; that when he was about to alight in front of Rempson Supermarket, Glen punched
him and leaned forward as if to get something from his clutch bag that was on the dashboard;
that thinking that Glen was reaching for a gun inside the clutch bag, he stabbed Glen with his
left hand from where he was seated in order to protect himself (Inunahan ko na sya); and that
when asked why he carried a knife, he replied that he needed the knife for protection because
he was living in a squatter’s area.
 Ruling of the RTC

On August 17, 2000, the RTC convicted Nugas of murder, ruling that his guilt had been
established beyond reasonable doubt.

The RTC accorded greater credence to the testimony of Nila because she had consistently
narrated the incident. It observed that although Nila had initially made a mistake in identifying
who, as between Nugas and Araneta, had stabbed her husband, she had rectified her error
upon seeing the two accused together in person; that despite the resemblance of Nugas and
Araneta to each other, she had firmly pointed to Nugas as the person who had stabbed Glen;
that even granting to be true Nugas’ version that Glen had pushed and punched him, his
stabbing of Glen could not be a reasonable and necessary means to repel the attack, for, by all
standards, fists were no match to knives; that treachery had been duly proved beyond
reasonable doubt, because Nugas’ position inside the vehicle in relation to Glen, who had sat
on the driver’s seat, and Nugas’ manner of inflicting the fatal blow from behind warranted the
inference that Nugas had taken advantage of his position to specially ensure the execution of
the felony, without risk to himself arising from any defense that Glen might make.

The RTC disposed thusly:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused MELANIO NUGAS is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.

Nugas is hereby further ordered to pay to heirs of Glen Remigio the amount of ₱80,000.00 for
actual damages, ₱50,000.00 for funeral expenses and ₱50,000 as death indemnity.

SO ORDERED.