People of the Philippines vs. Gunda and Rebato

For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim by credible, clear, and convincing evidence; once the victim’s unlawful aggression has ceased, any subsequent act of harming the victim constitutes retaliation, not defense. Treachery is present when the attack is sudden and unexpected, affording an unarmed and unaware victim no opportunity to defend himself, regardless of whether the wounds are frontal. An Information that alleges treachery without stating the ultimate facts constituting it is defective, but the defect is waived if the accused fails to file a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars before entering a plea.

On September 6, 2008, at approximately 11:30 p.m. in Barangay 5, Llorente, Eastern Samar, Fredelindo G. Remo was stabbed twice and died near Joyan’s Bakeshop. The accused, Elmer T. Rebato, admitted inflicting the stab wounds but claimed he acted in self-defense after Remo and two companions, Jimmy and Jomar Cabanatan, attacked him with water pump pipes. The prosecution presented a contrary account: Remo, an unarmed passerby walking home alone, was suddenly attacked from behind by Rebato, who used a small bolo handed to him by co-accused Gerwin Gunda. The autopsy revealed two penetrating stab wounds to the chest and abdomen that caused hypovolemic shock. The conflicting narratives framed the central issue of whether the killing was justified or qualified to murder.

• Version of the Defense: On September 6, 2008, around 11:00 p.m., Rebato was sitting outside Joyan’s Bakeshop in Brgy. 5, Llorente, Eastern Samar, listening to music on his MP4 with Edgar Carpio and Melchor Villaflor. Fredelindo Remo, together with siblings Jimmy and Jomar Cabanatan — who had been drinking 15 to 20 meters away — approached and attacked Carpio and Villaflor. Remo then struck Rebato with a water pump pipe, hitting his right elbow, left hand, and back. Someone from Remo’s group said, “Let us kill him.” Rebato ran inside the bakeshop, where co-accused Gerwin Gunda handed him a small bolo (locally called a “dipang”). Rebato used the dipang to stab Remo, who then fled. Rebato subsequently surrendered to the police and turned over the weapon. Six days later, policemen brought him to Dr. Myra Cecilia D. Grata for a physical examination.

• Version of the Prosecution: At about 11:30 p.m., Fredelindo Remo was walking home alone, passing by Joyan’s Bakeshop. Elmer Rebato approached Remo from behind and stabbed him twice — first on the right portion of the stomach, then on the left chest — using a dipang handed to him by Gerwin Gunda. Remo ran toward his house but collapsed and died shortly thereafter. Jimmy Cabanatan, who was 10 to 15 meters away, and Jomar Cabanatan, who was 8 to 10 meters away, witnessed the stabbing. Both testified that Remo had no opportunity to defend himself and that there was no prior provocation from the victim.

• Medical Findings: Dr. Myra Cecilia Grata conducted the postmortem examination. Remo sustained two stab wounds: a 2‑centimeter wound below the right nipple at the midclavicular line, penetrating the chest cavity; and a 1.5‑centimeter wound at the left lower quadrant of the abdomen, penetrating the abdominal cavity. The wounds caused hypovolemic shock secondary to stab wounds, leading to immediate death. Dr. Grata examined Rebato six days after the incident and found only a healing scar on the right elbow and a clear scar on the middle finger of the right hand. She testified that these injuries could have been sustained in another incident and that Rebato had no other injuries on his head, chest, or body.

• Trial Court Findings: The RTC found Rebato’s self-defense claim incredible. It noted that Rebato alleged being beaten alternately and repeatedly by three persons wielding pipes, yet he sustained only minor injuries. The trial court gave weight to the prosecution’s evidence and held that treachery attended the killing. Evident premeditation was not proven.

• Self-Defense: Petitioner maintained that he stabbed Remo only to repel an ongoing unlawful aggression. He argued that Remo, together with Jimmy and Jomar Cabanatan, attacked him with water pump pipes and threatened to kill him, compelling him to use the bolo as a reasonable means of self-defense.

• Defect in the Information: Petitioner contended that the Information merely alleged “with treachery” without stating the ultimate facts constituting treachery. He argued that this deficiency barred the appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, raising the issue in his appellant’s brief before the Court of Appeals.

• Self-Defense Not Proved: Respondent countered that petitioner failed to establish the indispensable element of unlawful aggression by clear and convincing evidence. The minor injuries sustained by petitioner were inconsistent with his claim of a sustained beating with pipes, and the examining physician’s opinion indicated the injuries might have originated from another incident.

• Treachery Established: Respondent argued that the victim was an unarmed, innocent passerby suddenly stabbed without warning. The swift and unexpected attack afforded Remo no chance to defend himself, satisfying the elements of treachery.

• Waiver of Objection to the Information: Respondent maintained that any defect in the Information’s allegation of treachery was waived when petitioner failed to file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars before entering his plea. The issue could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Self-Defense: Whether petitioner established the justifying circumstance of self-defense, particularly the element of unlawful aggression, by credible, clear, and convincing evidence.

• Treachery: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated despite the frontal nature of the stab wounds and the victim’s lack of awareness of the impending attack.

• Sufficiency of Information: Whether the failure of the Information to specify the ultimate facts constituting treachery precludes its appreciation as a qualifying circumstance, or whether petitioner waived the objection by not challenging the Information before entering his plea.

• Self-Defense: Self-defense was not established; unlawful aggression was absent. The trial court’s factual findings, affirmed by the CA, commanded great weight. Petitioner’s claim of being beaten alternately many times by three persons with pipes was irreconcilable with the scant injuries he sustained — only minor bruises on the elbow, hand, and back. The medical evidence lent no support, as Dr. Grata declared the injuries could have been from another incident. More fundamentally, even assuming an initial aggression, it had already ceased when petitioner retreated inside the bakery. Remo did not follow him inside, posed no further threat, and committed no further aggressive act. Petitioner’s subsequent stabbing of Remo was retaliation, not defense. The number and location of the fatal wounds, both aimed at vital organs, demonstrated a determined effort to kill rather than to repel an attack.

• Treachery: Treachery was correctly appreciated. The prosecution proved that Remo was walking home alone, unaware of any danger, when petitioner suddenly approached and stabbed him twice. The stealth, swiftness, and methodical execution of the attack left the unarmed victim no opportunity to resist or escape. The fact that the wounds were inflicted frontally was of no consequence; even a frontal attack qualifies as treacherous when it is unexpected and delivered on an unarmed victim who cannot defend himself.

• Sufficiency of Information: The objection was waived. Following People v. Solar, the Court reiterated that an Information alleging treachery must state the ultimate facts of the circumstance. If it does not, the proper remedy is a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion for a bill of particulars. Petitioner did neither before entering his not-guilty plea. His failure to timely object constituted a waiver of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and the deficiency was cured by the evidence presented at trial. Raising the issue only on appeal was immaterial.

• Self-Defense — Burden and Elements — When self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused, who must prove the following elements by credible, clear, and convincing evidence: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is indispensable; absent it, neither complete nor incomplete self-defense can be recognized.

• Unlawful Aggression — Two Kinds — As defined in People v. Nugas, actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or a weapon — an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause injury. Imminent unlawful aggression is an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must be offensive and positively strong, such as aiming a revolver with intent to shoot, not a mere threatening attitude.

• Treachery — Definition and Elements; Frontal Attack Rule — Treachery under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code requires: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed. Even a frontal attack can be treacherous if it is sudden and unexpected, and the unarmed victim has no opportunity to repel it or escape.

• Waiver of Defective Information — Solar Guidelines — Where an Information alleges a qualifying or aggravating circumstance like treachery using only a broad term without stating the ultimate facts, the Information is subject to a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars. Failure of the accused to avail of either remedy before entering a plea constitutes a waiver of the right to question the defect, and the circumstance may be appreciated if proven during trial.

• “Since self-defense is an affirmative allegation that can totally exculpate or mitigate the criminal liability of the accused, it is a well-settled principle that when it is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove it by credible, clear and convincing evidence. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.” — Foundational restatement of the burden in self-defense claims.

• “When Rebato ran to the bakery where Gunda handed him the dipang, Remo did not follow him inside. Instead of remaining inside the bakery to keep himself safe from Remo, Jimmy and Jomar, Rebato used the dipang handed to him to harm Remo. In this case, Rebato caused harm to Remo not as an act of self-defense, but as an act of vengeance. … At this point, the unlawful aggression on Remo’s part has already ceased.” — Articulates the critical transition from possible defense to unlawful retaliation.

• “Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.” — Established rule on treachery in frontal assaults.

• “Failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial.” — Guidelines on waiver from People v. Solar.

• People v. Nugas, 677 Phil. 168 (2011) — Cited for the definitions of actual/material and imminent unlawful aggression, which the Court used to assess whether Remo’s acts constituted unlawful aggression.

• People v. Racal, G.R. No. 224886, September 4, 2017 — Cited for the elements of murder and treachery, and as authority that factual findings of trial courts, when affirmed by the CA, are binding.

• People v. Rolando Solar y Dumbrique, G.R. No. 225595, August 6, 2019 — Controlling precedent on the proper allegation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances in an Information and the rules on waiver of defects.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited for the uniform amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages when the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

• Nacar v. Callery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Applied for the imposition of six percent (6%) interest per annum on all damages from finality until full payment.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines Murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Applied as the basis for conviction after the killing was shown to be qualified by treachery.

• Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery. Applied to Rebato’s sudden, unprovoked stabbing of the unarmed and unaware victim.

• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Governs the imposition of indivisible penalties in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Used to justify the penalty of reclusion perpetua without modification.

• Section 3(e), Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Ground for motion to quash when the Information does not substantially conform to the prescribed form. Referenced in the Solar guidelines on waiver of defects in the Information.

Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ.