Petitioner: People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee)

Respondent: HONORATO C. BELTRAN, JR. (accused-appellant)

Important Facts:
On October 25, 1999, a witness saw the appellant, Honorato Beltran, kill Norman Concepcion
Habla. He said that Beltran approached Norman, and, without a warning, hacked him with a
bolo. The victim tried to evade the blow but was hit in the hand and he tried to run. However, the
appellant hacked him in the back which caused him to fall down. The appellant then repeatedly
hacked the victim which led to the victim’s death. 
Another witness testified that the appellant and the victim had a previous quarrel which,
however, was subsequently settled in their barangay office. Appellant admitted that he hacked
Norman with a bolo but insisted that he did the same in self-defense. He narrated that Norman
went to his residence and challenged him to a fight where Norman was accompanied by several
unidentified persons. The victim pulled an ice-pick from his pocket. Thus, Beltran found a bolo
and hacked the victim when he entered his house. He fled afterwards.

RTC/Lower Court ruling: 

RTC rendered its Decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder. It reasoned that appellant's claim of self-defense cannot be sustained in view of the
positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

CA ruling:
Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with modifications the assailed RTC
Decision. Aside from reducing the amount of actual damages awarded by the RTC, it also
ordered appellant to pay the heirs of Norman an amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

SC ruling: 
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. In the instant case, there was no
unlawful aggression on the part of Norman that justified the act of appellant in hacking him to
death. There was no actual or imminent danger on the life of appellant when he came face to
face with Norman. As narrated by the first witness, Norman was just walking on the road and
was not provoking appellant into a fight. It was the appellant who approached and suddenly
hacked Norman repeatedly even when the latter was already fallen on the ground. In short,
appellant was the unlawful aggressor.

Important information related to the Article as discussed by the SC based on your case:
Article 13 paragraph (4) of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person's criminal liability
may be mitigated if there was a sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
which immediately preceded the crime. Before the same can be appreciated, the following
elements must concur: (1) That the provocation or threat must be sufficient or proportionate to
the crime committed and adequate to arouse one to its commission; (2) That the provocation or
threat must originate from the offended party; and (3) That the provocation must be immediate
to the commission of the crime by the person provoked.

Norman did not in any way provoke appellant into a fight on that fateful night. There was no
argument or physical struggle that ensued between them shortly before appellant hacked
Norman with a bolo. Norman was innocently walking along the road when, all of a sudden,
appellant surfaced and hacked him in rapid succession. The alleged altercation between the two
occurred much earlier (22 October 1999) as to reasonably and sufficiently incite the appellant to
act the way he did. In the absence of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party,
appellant's assertion of mitigating circumstance cannot be sustained. Moreover, and more
importantly, this ordinary mitigating circumstance cannot offset the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of treachery which is present in the instant case.