People vs Ben Francisco

GR No. 121682 (April 12, 2000)

FACTS:

On January 25, 1992, the accused Ben Francisco and his brother Boy Francisco attended a wake with the
victim, Jeffrey Fernandez and three others, namely, Arnel, Ramil and Gardo. As the group was playing
the card game Lucky 9, an altercation arose between Boy and the victim. Boy challenged the victim to a
fight, but the latter did not accept the challenge. Thereafter, Boy and his group left while Arnel and the
victim stayed behind. After a while, Boy and the accused-appellant came back, with the latter holding a
knife and yet another one tucked at his waist. Accused-appellant hit victim on the head and stabbed him.
Seriously wounded, the victim ran away and the brothers then fled in the opposite direction. The victim
was rushed to the Kalookan General Hospital, but he was dead on arrival.

Accused-appellant invoked defense of a relative. He testified that at the wake, he saw several men,
including the victim, ganging up on his brother Boy. Accused-appellant tried to pacify the group, but the
victim broke a beer bottle and tried to stab his brother with it. He, therefore, pulled out his knife and
stabbed the victim in defense of his brother. Accused-appellant added that it did not occur to him that his
brother could have started the fight.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of murder qualified by the aggravating circumstance of treachery
and pleads the justifying circumstance of defense of relative.


ISSUE:

Whether or not accused-appellant can invoke the defense of relative as a justifying circumstance which
should be appreciated by the court in the case at bar?

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that anyone who admits the killing of a person but invokes the defense of
relative to justify the same has the burden of proving these elements by clear and convincing evidence.
The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the
prosecution, for even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved if the accused has
admitted the killing.

In the case at bar, accused-appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon him. He was
unable to prove the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Other than his allegations
that he saw his brother being ganged upon by several men and about to be hit with a broken beer bottle,
no other substantial evidence in support thereof was presented. On the other hand, the prosecution
presented an eyewitness who testified that immediately prior to the stabbing, the victim was pleading with
accused-appellant to be allowed to explain about his previous altercation with accused-appellants
brother.

On the essence of treachery, the Supreme Court held that there is treachery when the attack is sudden and
unexpected that the victim was unable to defend himself, thus, ensuring the execution of the criminal act
without risk to the assailant. In this case, the Supreme Court found that at the time the victim was stabbed,
he was unarmed and he was not prepared for an attack. In fact, the victim even refused a challenge to a
fight made earlier by the brother of the accused, and after he was stabbed the victim did not even bother
to retaliate and he instead ran away from the scene of the crime. Even if the attack was frontal, the same is
treacherous because it was sudden and unexpected and the victim was unarmed and had no opportunity to
defend himself.