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 a​ nd to pay the widow of Costan damages.

Appellant assailed RTC’s 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 RTC’s decision with modification, imposing ​reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole and ordered him to pay the 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, appellant’s 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.