PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

- versus SAMUEL ANOD, Appellant.

G.R. No. 186420 August 25, 2009
Facts:
On May 16, 1997, at Bislig, Surigao del Sur, Philippines, Samuel Anod and Lionel Lumbayan stabbed
and hacked to death Erlando Costan with a pointed bolo, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the
said Costan.
The RTC found Anod and Lumbayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentenced them
reclusion perpetua and to pay the widow of Costan damages.
Appellant assailed RTCs decision and argues that the act was against his will and done under the
compulsion of an irresistible force and uncontrollable fear for his life. Moreover, appellant contends that
the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery were not proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
The CA affirmed RTCs decision with modification, imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole and ordered him to pay heirs of Costan civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and
actual damages.
Issue:
1.

Whether CA erred in not considering the exempting circumstances for irresistible

force and uncontrollable fear?

2. Whether CA erred in appreciating treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying

circumstances?
Held:

1. No. Based on the evidence on record, appellant had the chance to escape Lumbayan's
threat or engage Lumbayan in combat, as appellant was also holding a knife at the
time. Thus, appellant's allegation of fear or duress is untenable. In order for the
circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the compulsion be
of such a character as to leave no opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal
combat. Therefore, under the circumstances, appellants alleged fear would not
suffice to exempt him from incurring criminal liability.
2. No. Here, appellant tied Costan while the latter was lying down before he and Lumbayan
stabbed the latter to death; thus, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to
themselves. Obviously, Costan could not flee for his life or retaliate. This aggravating
circumstance qualifies the crime to murder.
SC affirmed CA decision with modification that the award of civil indemnity was reduced.