G.R. No.

199579               December 10, 2012 indicating that the hood of his jeepney was being opened. He then went to defer to the factual findings made by the trial court, as affirmed by the CA
RAMON JOSUE y GONZALES, Petitioner, the place where his jeepney was parked, armed with a .45 caliber pistol when the case was brought before it on appeal. The Court has, after all,
vs. tucked to his waist. There he saw Macario, together with Eduardo Matias consistently ruled that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. and Richard Akong, in the act of removing the locks of his vehicle’s battery. witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which
RESOLUTION When the petitioner sought the attention of Macario’s group, Macario forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it. Factual findings
REYES, J.: pointed his .38 caliber gun at the petitioner and pulled its trigger, but the of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses’ credibility are
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner gun jammed and failed to fire. The petitioner then got his gun and used it to entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when
Ramon Josue y Gonzales (Josue) to assail the Decision 1 dated June 30, 2011 fire at Macario, who was hit in the upper arm. Macario again tried to use affirmed by the CA, and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the
and Resolution2 dated December 1, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- his gun, but it still jammed then fell on the ground. As Macario reached trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could
G.R. CR No. 33180. down for the gun, the petitioner fired at him once more, hitting him at the substantially affect the outcome of the case.7
The petitioner was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide before back. When Macario still tried to fire his gun, the petitioner fired at him for As against the foregoing parameters, the Court finds, and so holds, that
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, via an information that reads: the third time, hitting his hand and causing Macario to drop his gun. The both the trial and appellate courts have correctly ruled on the petitioner’s
That on or about May 1, 2004, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said petitioner got Macario’s gun and kept it in his residence. culpability for the crime of frustrated homicide, which has the following for
accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and The petitioner’s son, Rafael Josue, testified in court to corroborate his its elements:
feloniously, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of father’s testimony. (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his
ARMANDO MACARIO y PINEDA a.k.a. BOYET ORA, by then and there SPO4 Axelito Palmero (SPO4 Palmero) also testified for the defense, use of a deadly weapon in his assault;
shooting the said Armando Macario y Pineda a.k.a. Boyet Ora several times declaring that on May 26, 2004, he received from Josue a .38 caliber (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die
with a cal. 45 pistol hitting him on the different parts of his body, thus revolver that allegedly belonged to Macario. because of timely medical assistance; and
performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime On October 22, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision4 finding the petitioner (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article
of Homicide, as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide. It gave 248 of the Revised Penal Code is present.
reason of causes independent of his will, that is, by the timely and able full credit to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, further noting that These elements were duly established during the trial.
medical attendance rendered to the said ARMANDO MACARIO y PINEDA the defense had failed to prove that the .38 caliber revolver that was The trial court’s factual findings, when taken collectively, clearly prove the
a.k.a. BOYET ORA which prevented his death thereafter. turned over to SPO4 Palmero actually belonged to Macario. The dispositive existence of the crime’s first and second elements, pertaining to the
Contrary to law.3 portion of the RTC Decision reads: petitioner’s intent to kill and his infliction of fatal wound upon the victim.
The case was docketed as Crim. Case No. 05-236299 and raffled to Branch WHEREFORE, accused RAMON JOSUE y GONZALES is found guilty beyond Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist,
40 of the RTC. Upon arraignment, the petitioner entered a plea of "not reasonable doubt of Frustrated Homicide without any aggravating or among other things, of the means used by the malefactors; the conduct of
guilty". After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. mitigating circumstances to vary the penalty imposable. Applying the the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of
The witnesses for the prosecution were: (1) victim Armando Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an the victim; and the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by
Macario y Pineda (Macario); (2) Dr. Casimiro Tiongson, Jr. (Dr. Tiongson), indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision the victim.8 Significantly, among the witnesses presented by the
Chief Surgical Resident of Chinese General Hospital; (3) Dr. Edith Calalang correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision prosecution was Villanueva, who, while being a friend of the petitioner, had
(Dr. Calalang), a radiologist; (4) Ariel Villanueva, an eyewitness to the crime; mayor as maximum. testified against the petitioner as an eyewitness and specifically identified
and (5) Josielyn Macario, wife of the victim. The prosecution presented the Accused Ramon Josue y Gonzales is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim, the petitioner as the assailant that caused the wounds sustained by the
following account: Armando Macario y Pineda, the sum of [P]32,214.25 for hospitalization and victim Macario. Even the petitioner cites in the petition he filed with this
On May 1, 2004, at around 11:15 in the evening, Macario, a barangay medicine expenses as actual damages. Court the prosecution’s claim that at the time he fired the first gunshot, he
tanod, was buying medicine from a store near the petitioner’s residence in The accused’s bail is deemed cancelled. Bondsman is ordered to surrender was shouting, "Papatayin kita! (I will kill you!)"9 The doctors who attended
Barrio Obrero, Tondo, Manila when he saw the petitioner going towards the accused to this Court for execution of the final judgment. to the victim’s injuries also affirmed before the trial court that Macario had
him, while shouting to ask him why he had painted the petitioner’s vehicle. SO ORDERED.5 sustained gunshot wounds, and that the injuries caused thereby were fatal
Macario denied the petitioner’s accusation, but petitioner still pointed and Unsatisfied, the petitioner appealed from the RTC’s decision to the CA, if not given medical attention. The trial court then held:
shot his gun at Macario. The gunshots fired by the petitioner hit Macario’s which affirmed the rulings of the RTC and thus, dismissed the appeal. Weighing the evidence thus proffered, this Court believes the prosecution’s
elbow and fingers. As the unarmed Macario tried to flee from his assailant, Hence, the present petition. The petitioner assails the CA’s dismissal of the version.
the petitioner still fired his gun at him, causing him to sustain a gunshot appeal, arguing that the prosecution had failed to overthrow the xxxx
wound at his back. Macario was then rushed to the Chinese General constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor. The Court gives credence to the testimonies of the witnesses presented by
Hospital for medical treatment. We deny the petition. the prosecution as it did not find any fact or circumstance in the shooting
Dr. Tiongson confirmed that Macario sustained three (3) gunshot wounds: At the outset, we emphasize that since the petitioner seeks this Court’s incident to show that said witnesses had falsely testified or that they were
(1) one on his right hand, (2) one on his left elbow, and (3) one indicating a review of his case through a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules actuated by ill-motive.
bullet’s entry point at the posterior of the chest, exiting at the anterior line. of Court, only questions of law shall be addressed by the Court, barring any xxxx
Dr. Calalang took note of the tiny metallic foreign bodies found in Macario’s question that pertains to factual issues on the crime’s commission. The x x x (A)s a result of being shot three (3) times with a .45 caliber gun,
x-ray results, which confirmed that the wounds were caused by gunshots. general rule is that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for complainant sustained mortal wounds which without medical assistance,
Further, she said that the victim’s injuries were fatal, if not medically review under Rule 45, subject only to certain exceptions as when the trial complainant could have died therefrom. Dr. Casimiro Tiongson, Jr., the
attended to. Macario incurred medical expenses for his treatments. court’s judgment is not supported by sufficient evidence or is premised on a chief surgical resident who attended the complainant and prescribed his
For his defense, the petitioner declared to have merely acted in self- misapprehension of facts.6 medicines, testified that the victim, Armando Macario, sustained three (3)
defense. He claimed that on the evening of May 1, 2004, he, together with Upon review, the Court has determined that the present case does not fall gunshot wounds located in the left elbow, right hand and another bullet
his son Rafael, was watching a television program when they heard a sound under any of the exceptions. In resolving the present petition, we then entering his posterior chest exiting in front of complainant’s chest.
These findings were also contained in the x-ray consultation reports Given the foregoing, and in the absence of any circumstance that would (Gerry), who was drunk at that time, arrived. Gerry asked Cristina if she had
testified to by Dr. Edith Calalang as corroborating witness.10 (Citations have qualified the crime to murder, we hold that the trial court committed cooked food already but the latter answered in the negative because she
omitted) no error in declaring the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the had no money to buy food. Gerry scolded and uttered words against her,
What is also noteworthy is that the petitioner invoked self-defense, after he crime of frustrated homicide. Applying the rules provided by the and then slapped her. They had an altercation for about ten (10) minutes
had admitted that he caused the victim’s wounds when he shot the latter Indeterminate Sentence Law, the trial court correctly imposed for such when Cristina's father arrived and pacified them. Gerry left but after thirty
several times using a deadly weapon, i.e., the .45 caliber pistol that he offense an indeterminate penalty of six ( 6) months and one (1) day (30) minutes, he returned. He pointed a knife at Cristina's neck. The latter
carried with him to the situs of the crime. In People v. Mondigo,11 we of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day begged Gerry not to hurt her and to pity their children if something
explained: of prision mayor as maximum. The award of actual damages is also happens to her. Gerry continued pointing the knife and told Cristina to stop
By invoking self-defense, appellant admitted committing the felonies for sustained. However, we hold that in line with prevailing talking or otherwise, he will put a hole in her neck. Then, Gerry slapped
which he was charged albeit under circumstances which, if proven, would jurisprudence, 17 the victim is entitled to an award of moral damages in the Cristina's face twice. While Gerry was still holding the knife, Cristina pushed
justify his commission of the crimes. Thus, the burden of proof is shifted amount of P10,000.00. him and he fell on the ground. She took the knife which Gerry was holding
to appellant who must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the killing of WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 30, 2011 and and begged him not to come near her. She was holding the knife near her
Damaso and wounding of Anthony were attended by the following Resolution dated December 1, 2011 ofthe Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR chest pointed at Gerry when he suddenly grabbed her and that was the
circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) No. 33180 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the petitioner Ramon time that the knife went in contact with his chest. When she saw her
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and Josue y Gonzales is also ordered to pay the offended party the amount husband bloodied, she shouted for help and her father (Rodolfo Samson)
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending of P10,000.00 as moral damages. and brother (Allan Samson) came and brought Gerry to the hospital. Her
himself.12 (Citations omitted and emphasis ours) SO ORDERED. relatives told her that Gerry died in the hospital. (TSN, September 6, 2006,
In order to be exonerated from the charge, the petitioner then assumed the .R. No. 214883, September 02, 2015 pp. 14-27)
burden of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that he merely acted in self- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISTINA
defense. Upon review, we agree with the RTC and the CA that the SAMSON, Accused-Appellants. On June 27, 2002, ALLAN SAMSON (Allan) was at home watching television
petitioner failed in this regard. DECISION with his father. He heard yelling and shouting from the house of his sister
While the three elements quoted above must concur, self-defense relies, MENDOZA, J.: Cristina and brother-in-law Gerry. Since it was just ordinary for him to hear
first and foremost, on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the For review in this appeal is the May 6, 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of his sister and brother-in-law fight, he and his father just ignored it. After
victim. If no unlawful aggression is proved, then no self-defense may be Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 05832, which affirmed the September fifteen (15) minutes of listening to their quarrel, they heard Cristina cry for
successfully pleaded.13 "Unlawful aggression" here presupposes an actual, 27, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Tarlac City (RTC) help. Upon hearing this, he immediately went to the house of his sister and
sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger of the attack, from the in Criminal Case No. 12285, convicting accused-appellant Cristina Samson saw her holding Gerry and she requested him and his father to bring Gerry
victim.14 (Cristina) for parricide committed against her husband, Gerry Delmar to the hospital. They called a tricycle and he, together with his father,
In the present case, particularly significant to this element of "unlawful (Gerry), and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. brought Gerry to Talon General Hospital. The doctor, however, declared
aggression" is the trial court’s finding that Macario was unarmed at the that Gerry was already dead. Then, the tanod arrives and Allan instructed
time of the shooting, while the petitioner then carried with him a .45 The Antecedents the tanod to call the siblings and relatives of Gerry. When the relatives
caliber pistol. According to prosecution witness Villanueva, it was even the arrived, they went home. (TSN, November 18, 2006, pp. 4-6)5
petitioner who confronted the victim, who was then only buying medicine On August 14, 2002, Cristina was charged with the crime of Parricide, Version of the Prosecution
from a sari-sari store. Granting that the victim tried to steal the petitioner’s defined and penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
car battery, such did not equate to a danger in his life or personal safety. At The Information articulates the following criminal charges, viz: In its Brief for the Appellee,6 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
one point during the fight, Macario even tried to run away from his That on or about the 27th day of June, 2002 in Tarlac City, Philippines and provided the following as its Counter-Statement of Facts:
assailant, yet the petitioner continued to chase the victim and, using his .45 within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, willfully, On January 25, 1994, appellant Cristina Samson and victim Jerry Delmar
caliber pistol, fired at him and caused the mortal wound on his chest. unlawfully and feloniously and with intent to kill her husband Gerry Delmar, were married. They were blessed with two (2) daughters namely Christine
Contrary to the petitioner’s defense, there then appeared to be no "real with whom she was united in lawful wedlock, armed herself with a deadly and Cherrie Lou. The couple lived in their own house which is just adjacent
danger to his life or personal safety," 15 for no unlawful aggression, which weapon, a knife, and stabbed said Gerry Delmar on his chest, which to the house of appellant's family. The union of the two was never a
would have otherwise justified him in inflicting the gunshot wounds for his resulted to his death. peaceful one. Constant quarrels filled their household and occurred in front
defense, emanated from Macario’s end.* of their children and other relatives.
The weapon used and the number of gunshots fired by the petitioner, in CONTRARY TO LAW.3
relation to the nature and location of the victim’s wounds, further negate When arraigned almost four (4) years later, Cristina entered a plea of not On June 27, 2002, appellant and the victim had one of their usual fights. As
the claim of self-defense. For a claim of self-defense to prosper, the means guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued with the parties agreeing to a testified by appellant herself, she and her two children were watching
employed by the person claiming the defense must be commensurate to reverse trial on account of her invocation of the justifying circumstance of television in their home when the victim arrived drunk. Victim asked for his
the nature and extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be self-defense. dinner but appellant was not able to cook food which led to the fight.
rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful Christine, the youngest daughter of the appellant and the victim, narrated
aggression.16 Considering the petitioner’s use of a deadly weapon when his Version of the Defense that she witnessed the fight between her parents, that as the fight
victim was unarmed, and his clear intention to cause a fatal wound by still escalated, appellant was able to get hold of the knife which was placed on
firing his gun at the victim who had attempted to flee after already The version of Cristina appears in the Brief for the Accused-Appellant 4 as the roof and stabbed the victim. The victim fell on the ground and crawled
sustaining two gunshot wounds, it is evident that the petitioner did not act follows: until he reached the door. Cristine remembered that people arrived in their
merely in self-defense, but was an aggressor who actually intended to kill On June 27, 2002, CRISTINA SAMSON (Cristina) was in their house watching home, helped the victim board a tricycle and brought him to the hospital.
his victim. television together with her children when her husband, Gerry Delmar Appellant, on the other hand, ran out and went to her father and asked for
money and left. That was the last night that Christine and Cherry Lou saw unassigned.12 Considering that what is at stake here is no less than the physical force or actual use of a weapon. It is present only when the one
their mother.7 liberty of the accused, this Court has meticulously and thoroughly reviewed attacked faces real and immediate threat to his life. It must be continuous,
The Ruling of the RTC and examined the records of the case and finds that there is merit in her otherwise, it does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense.17
appeal.
In its September 27, 2012 Decision, the RTC found the proffered self- The question now is: was there unlawful aggression when Cristina killed her
defense of Cristina to be untenable. In its view, there was no longer any There appears to be a conflict between the testimony of Cristina and her husband?
threat to her life before she stabbed her husband Gerry. Though there was daughter, Christine Delmar (Christine). Cristina claimed that she got the
an existent danger as there was an altercation before the stabbing incident, knife from her husband who fell down after she pushed him. After taking The Court answers in the affirmative.
the imminence of such danger ceased when, as admitted by her, Gerry possession of the deadly weapon, she told her husband not to come near
already put down the knife. The RTC even concluded that it was she who her. She was holding the knife near her chest and pointed towards him The Court hesitates to share the observation of the RTC and the CA that
provoked him when she suddenly pushed him to the ground. She then took when he suddenly grabbed her and that was the time that the knife went in Cristina failed to discharge the burden of proving that unlawful aggression
the knife and told him not to come near her. When he grabbed her, she contact with her husband's chest. was present when she killed her husband.
stabbed him. After she took hold of the knife, there was no longer any
unlawful aggression to speak of that would necessitate the need to kill Christine, however, perceived it differently. According to her, she witnessed Contrary to the conclusion of the CA that Gerry's aggression had already
Gerry.8 Thus, the decretal portion of the RTC decision reads in this wise: the fight between her parents. She narrated that as the fight escalated, her ceased when he was disarmed, it is the Court's view that the aggression still
WHEREFORE, finding accused CRISTINA SAMSON guilty beyond reasonable mother was able to get hold of a knife, which was inserted in the roof, and continued. Her perceived peril to her life continued and persisted until she
doubt of the felony of Parricide defined and penalized under Article 246 of used it in stabbing her father. put an end to it.
the Revised Penal Code, accused CRISTINA SAMSON is hereby sentenced to
suffer a penalty of "Reclusion Perpetua" pursuant to R.A. 9346 (An Act Both the RTC and the CA believed the version of Cristina, but both were of It must be noted that after she was able to take hold of the knife from her
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines). the view that before she stabbed her husband, there was no more husband, he did not stand down but, instead, continued to move towards
imminent danger to her life. For said reason, her fatal stabbing of her her despite her plea that he should not come nearer. He grabbed her by the
Accused is also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Christine S. husband was not justified. arm which could have precipitated her well-grounded belief that her life
Delmar and Cherrie Lo S. Delmar the amount of P75,000.00 as civil The Court's Ruling was still in danger if he would be able to wrest the weapon from her. It was
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary not farfetched to presume that, being stronger, he could have easily
damages and costs of suit. Self-defense, when invoked as a justifying circumstance, implies the overpowered her and eventually killed her.
admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act. Generally,
SO ORDERED.9 the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused A similar situation was presented in the case of People v.
The Ruling of the CA beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact Rabandaban18 (Rabandaban), wherein the Court ruled that despite the fact
innocent. When the accused, however, admits killing the victim, it is that the accused succeeded in wresting the bolo from his wife, he was still
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It stated that although there could incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear justified in using the weapon against her because his life was still in danger.
have been an unlawful aggression at the start when Gerry repeatedly and convincing evidence.13 Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, The Court explained:
slapped Cristina and held a knife at her throat, it already disappeared when self-defense shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the xxx When appellant got possession of the bolo he already must have been
he put down the knife. According to the CA, it was this precise act that gave defense.14 in a precarious condition because of his wounds, one of which was
Cristina the opportunity to push her husband and gain control of the knife. described by the sanitary inspector as "fatal" since the large intestine came
Moreover, the fact that she fled and evaded arrest for four (4) years To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent out of it. And appellant, we think, was justified in believing that his wife
contradicted her claim of innocence.10 The CA disposed as follows: upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the wanted to finish him off because, according to the evidence, she struggled
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 27, 2012 of the RTC, Branch concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of to regain possession of the bolo after he had succeeded in wresting it
65, Tarlac City in Criminal Case No. 12285, finding accused-appellant guilty Article 11 of the RPC, viz: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity from her. With the aggressor still unsubdued and showing determination
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and sentencing her of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient to fight to the finish, it would have been folly on the part of appellant,
to reclusion perpetua and to pay damages and the cost of suit, provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 15 who must already have been losing strength due to loss of blood, to
is AFFIRMED. throw away the bolo and thus give his adversary a chance to pick it up
Presence of Unlawful Aggression even if Aggressor was Disarmed and again use it against him. Having the right to protect his life, appellant
SO ORDERED.11 was not in duty bound to expose himself to such a contingency.19
Hence, this appeal. Among the requisites of self-defense, the most important that needs to be [Emphases Supplied]
ISSUE proved by the accused, for it to prosper, is the element of unlawful In Rabandaban, the victim, instead of running away from the accused
aggression. It must be proven first in order for self-defense to be husband after the bolo was wrested from her, continued to struggle with
The sole issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether or not the CA erred in successfully pleaded. There can be no self-defense, whether complete or him to regain possession of the bolo. This fact, together with her husband's
not appreciating the justifying circumstance of self-defense in favor of incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against compromised condition, being already badly wounded, justified him in
Cristina. the person who resorted to self-defense.16 When the Court speaks of finally neutralizing his wife who was then determined in putting an end to
unlawful aggression, it is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to his life. In the case at bench, the unlawful aggression would have ceased if
Let it be underscored that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. There is an unlawful aggression he just walked away from the scene considering that Cristina had gained
open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and on the part of the victim when he puts the life, limb, or right of the person the upper hand, being the one in possession of the knife. Instead, Gerry
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or invoking self-defense in actual or imminent danger. There must be actual chose to ignore her plea not to come near her and continued moving
towards her without regard to his safety despite the fact that the knife was coming near her; and that she had no other available means or any less explanation for her choice of action. Nevertheless, under the
pointed towards his direction. deadly weapon to repel the threat other than the knife in her hand. She did circumstances, a cloud of uncertainty lingers. In such a case, it is the duty of
not have the time or sufficient tranquillity of mind to think, calculate and the Court to resolve the doubt in favor of the accused.
In both Rabandaban and the present case, the victims, despite having been choose the weapon to be used. In predicaments like this, human nature
disarmed, still posed a threat to the lives of the accused. The danger to does not act upon the processes of formal reason but in obedience to the Considering that Cristina was justified in killing her husband under Article
their lives persisted leaving them with no other choice but to defend instinct of self-preservation.24 When it is apparent that a person has 11, paragraph 1 of the RPC, she should be exonerated of the crime charged.
themselves lest they be the ones to be victimized. reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction For the same reason, the Court finds no act or omission from which a civil
that act or to mitigate his liability.25cralawred liability may arise.
In that situation, Cristina had reasons to believe that her life was still in
danger. It is to be noted that before she was able to take hold of the Moreover, the fact that Gerry was no longer armed does not negate the WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The May 6, 2014 Decision of the
weapon, her husband held the same knife and pointed it at her throat. So reasonableness of the means employed by Cristina. Perfect equality Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 05832, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
when he, who was taller and stronger, approached her and grabbed her by between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the The accused-appellant, Cristina Samson, is ACQUITTED of the crime
the arm, it was instinctive for her to take the extreme precautionary aggressor is not required.26 What the law requires is a rational equivalence, charged.
measure by stabbing him before he could get back the knife and make good in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency,
his earlier threat of putting a hole in her throat. the imminent danger to which the accused is exposed, and the instinct Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent, Correctional
more than reason, that moves or impels his defense; and the Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City. The Superintendent
Contrary to the trial court's assessment, she did not show aggression proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but upon is DIRECTED to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless she is
towards her husband when she pushed him after he pointed the knife away the imminent danger of such injury.27 being lawfully held for another cause and to report the action she has taken
from her. She was, in fact, manifesting a passive attitude towards him when within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
she just stood her ground, with the knife in hand, asking him not to come Lack of Sufficient Provocation
near her.20 SO ORDERED.
The last requisite to be considered is lack of sufficient provocation on the G.R. No. 152715 July 29, 2005
It would have been a different story if Gerry, after dropping the knife, part of the person defending himself. The Court cannot sustain the trial ROGELIO SOPLENTE, Petitioner,
walked away and Cristina still went after him. If that were the case, she court's observation that it was Cristina who provoked her husband when vs.
could not assert self-defense. She was no longer acting in self-defense but she suddenly pushed him. Her shoving him cannot be considered a PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
in retaliation for the earlier aggression. Retaliation is inconsistent with self- sufficient provocation proportionate to the act of aggression.28 She merely DECISION
defense and in fact belies it. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by capitalized on a window of opportunity, when her husband removed the Tinga, J.:
the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him; while in knife away from her throat, to save herself from what she had perceived to Self-preservation is the first law of nature.
self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by be a danger to her life. Anybody, in her situation would have acted in the - Samuel Butler
the accused.21 same reasonable way. A person acting in self-defense is apt to unleash with lightning speed the
terrible swift sword. It is perhaps the speed with which the relevant actions
Now that unlawful aggression has already been established, it is well to Flight as an Indication of Guilt or Non-guilt transpire that poses some difficulty in the adjudication of many self-defense
consider the other two requisites in order to determine whether the self- claims. The events in this case involve several actors and a series of
defense is complete or incomplete. The CA took the fact of Cristina's flight and evasion of arrest for four (4) assaults, all occurring within the span of several blinks of the eye. The
years against her. To the appellate court, it belied her claim of innocence. totality of the picture convinces us that the accused was enmeshed in a
Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed web of danger which convulsed him into a reasonable fear for his life. It is
Under the attendant circumstances, the Court cannot subscribe to that under that dark cloud that the accused, as he readily admits, ended the life
The requisite of reasonable necessity of the means employed is met if the view. of Joel Notarte. The loss of life is cause for grief, but the facts dictate that
person invoking self-defense used a weapon or a manner equivalent to the the killing was justified under the circumstances.
means of attack used by the aggressor. The reasonable necessity of the self- Generally, flight, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a Rogelio Soplente (Rogelio) seeks the reversal of the Decision1 and
defense utilized by an accused is to defend himself "depends upon the circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established, for a the Resolution2 denying his motion for reconsideration thereof, rendered
nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 20446. The CA affirmed
size and other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the to defend himself and assert his innocence.29 It has been held, however, the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City,
person who invokes self-defense; and also the place and the occasion of the that non-flight may not be construed as an indication of innocence either. Branch 22 acquitting Rogelio of the crime of frustrated homicide in Criminal
assault."22 Moreover, the nature and location of wounds are considered There is no law or dictum holding that staying put is proof of innocence, for Case No. 5093 but convicting him of homicide in Criminal Case No. 5094.
important indicators whether or not to disprove a plea of self-defense. 23 the Court is not blind to the cunning ways of a wolf which, after a kill, may The antecedent operative facts follow.
feign innocence and choose not to flee.30 In Cristina's case, she explained Originally, Rogelio and his first cousin Nicanor Soplente (Nicanor) were
In the case at bench, the lone stab wound located on the victim's chest that she took flight for fear of her safety because of possible retaliation jointly charged with frustrated homicide for the wounding of Eduardo
supports the argument that Cristina feared for her life and this fear from her husband's siblings.31 The Court finds such reason for her choice to Leyson VI (Leyson) and with homicide for the killing of Joel Notarte
impelled her to defend it by stabbing him. It was a reasonable means flee acceptable. She did not hide from the law but from those who would (Notarte) under informations with the following accusatory portions:
chosen by her in view of the attending circumstances, to wit: that her possibly do her harm. I. Criminal Case No. 5093
stronger husband, who had earlier pointed the said knife to her throat, That on or about 12:30 o’clock in the early morning of May 4, 1988 at Purok
approached her and grabbed her arm, despite her plea that he refrain from The RTC and the CA might have some hesitation in accepting her Santa Cruz, San Pedro Street, Lagao, General Santos City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Besinga and Leyson offered the following accounts of what had transpired At past midnight, Bukay asked Rogelio and Nicanor to accompany her in
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to then. looking for her children who had watched the singing contest. They obliged
kill and with the use of a knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and Gulle testified that he saw Notarte fall to the ground, which was followed but before they had gone about three hundred (300) meters, Nicanor
feloniously stab one Eduardo Leyson VI hitting him on his left arm (through by a gun burst which he presumed came from Leyson’s handgun. He saw separated from them to buy cigarettes from a nearby store. Rogelio and
and through), which wound ordinarily would cause the death of said Leyson, by then clearly wounded, chasing Rogelio. However, Gulle did not Bukay went onwards but at a distance of about fifty (50) meters from the
Eduardo Leyson VI, thus performing all the acts of execution which should see the actual stabbing of either Notarte or Leyson.9 stage, Rogelio stopped and Bukay proceeded alone to look for her children.
have produced the crime of homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless Besinga testified that he saw the commotion at a distance of about thirty A few minutes later, Bukay appeared with the children and they all headed
did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will and the (30) meters while he was walking towards the group of Leyson at the right home.17
timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Eduardo Leyson VI side of San Pedro St. When he was barely three (3) meters away from them, While on the way home, Rogelio suddenly found himself surrounded by
which prevented his death.4 he saw Rogelio and Leyson approaching each other saying something around ten (10) persons led by Leyson. He shouted at Nicanor to run and
II. Criminal Case No. 5094 unintelligible. Notarte was beside Leyson at this juncture. Rogelio then the latter immediately scampered away. Leyson drew his gun and fired at
That on or about 12:30 o’clock in the early morning of May 4, 1988 at Purok stabbed Leyson, who drew a gun and fired in the air. Besinga did not notice Rogelio but the latter was able to parry it by tapping the base of Leyson’s
Santa Cruz, San Pedro St., Lagao, General Santos City, Philippines and within the others but his companions were nearby mingled with the people going hand holding the gun. Forthwith, Rogelio stabbed Leyson once. As Notarte
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, home.10 had started mauling Rogelio after Leyson had fired his gun, Rogelio also
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to Leyson, who survived the attack and sustained a wound on his left arm, stabbed Notarte. He stabbed both Leyson and Notarte to protect himself
kill and armed with a deadly weapon, did then and there willfully, claimed to have been taken by surprise when the Soplente cousins from being killed by the group who were armed with canes and a lead pipe
unlawfully and feloniously stab Joel Notarte, thereby inflicting upon the suddenly attacked Notarte and himself. The assault was so sudden and fast aside from Leyson’s gun. Rogelio managed to escape after that and he
latter stab wound which caused his instantaneous death.5 that while he was standing with arms akimbo, he was stabbed by Rogelio. sought refuge in the house of Susing.18
The prosecution’s evidence, culled mainly from the oral testimonies of Leyson reacted by drawing his gun and firing a shot in the air to prevent Before dawn, a policeman arrived at Susing’s house and Rogelio voluntarily
Gracidio Gulle (Gulle), Renato Besinga (Besinga) and Leyson, revealed the further attack. Notarte who was a little to the rear but very near his right gave himself up. The knife he used was also turned over to the police. He
following: side was attacked by Nicanor at the same instant that Rogelio had attacked was brought to the police substation at Lagao. A few hours later, Nicanor
A group consisting of Leyson, Notarte, Besinga, Gulle, Ewing Bayani, Ralowe his companion, Leyson. The assaults were done simultaneously with was also picked up by the police.19
Velayo, Ebol Bayani, Reynaldo Jamerlan and Bond de Vera were drinking lightning speed, with Rogelio concentrating on Leyson and Nicanor on In its assailed ruling, the RTC held that Nicanor had no participation in the
and conversing in the early evening of 3 May 1988 which was the occasion Notarte. Rogelio fled after the firing of the gun. (But Leyson did not testify fatal incident which occurred in the early morning of 4 May 1988.20 It also
of the fiesta at Purok Sta. Cruz, San Pedro St., Lagao, General Santos City. whether Nicanor had also taken flight.) Leyson tried to go after Rogelio found that there was no evidence of conspiracy.21 Accordingly, it absolved
They were at the store of a certain Diola which was situated near the stage used but since he was bleeding profusely, a policeman assisted him in going Nicanor of the crimes charged in both Criminal Case Nos. 5093 and
where the amateur singing contest was to be held.6 to the Canda clinic for medical treatment. He learned the next day that 5094.22 On the other hand, Rogelio’s claim of self-defense was deemed
During the singing contest, which started at around ten o’clock in the Notarte died as a result of the stabbing.11 legally justified with respect to Leyson’s injury but not with respect to
evening (10:00 p.m.), Bebong Cambarijan (Cambarijan) approached Gulle to On the other hand, Rogelio admitted having stabbed both Leyson and Notarte’s death. Thus, while Rogelio was acquitted in Criminal Case No.
tell him that Rogelio and Nicanor Soplente (the two accused) had asked him Notarte, but claimed that he did so in self-defense. 12 The testimony of 5093, he was found guilty of the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No.
and Estoy Provido (Provido), who was tough among the group. Without Rogelio and Nicanor themselves were presented as well as that of their 5094.23
telling anybody except Leyson and Notarte about the incident, Gulle went cousin Elena Cafi (Bukay) and store owner, Joy Malig-on (Malig-on). Based Notwithstanding the above findings, the lower court ordered both Nicanor
to the house of policeman Rudy Penequito (Penequito) to get help. on the findings of the lower court, the defense’s version of the incident is and Rogelio to jointly and severally indemnify the family of Notarte for the
Penequito instructed Gulle to refrain from accosting the Soplente cousins to condensed as follows: latter’s death and to pay the hospitalization expenses of Leyson in its
avoid disturbing the singing contest. Penequito also approached Rogelio The cousins, Rogelio and Nicanor, watched the amateur singing contest decision dated 7 May 1996. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
and Nicanor and admonished them not to make trouble, but despite the being held near the Sta. Cruz Chapel at San Pedro St. which started at about ACCORDINGLY, in the absence of proof of conspiracy, Nicanor Soplente is
intervention, Gulle, Notarte and Leyson watched the Soplente cousins still. nine thirty in the evening (9:30 p.m.). They were standing only a few meters acquitted in both criminal cases nos. 5093 and 5094. Considering the
Gulle, along with Bebing Go, then accosted the Soplente cousins and away from the group of people who were drinking in the store of Diola. admission and the evidence adduced, Rogelio Soplente is acquitted on
inquired where they came from. Nicanor politely answered that they were While engrossed with the singing contest, they were approached by two (2) reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 5093 for frustrated homicide but he
staying with Susing Cafi (Susing). Since Gulle and the others knew that persons from the group of Leyson who then tapped Nicanor’s shoulder. is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 5094 for
Susing was a local resident, they were satisfied with the answer and they They insisted on bringing Nicanor along with them so Nicanor called for homicide with the attendance of the mitigating circumstances of
left the Soplente cousins alone. Gulle however noticed that Nicanor smelled Rogelio’s help. The latter immediately intervened to stop the two from provocation or threat and voluntary surrender and he is hereby sentenced
of liquor.7 harassing Nicanor.13 to 6 years of PRISION CORRECCIONAL to 8 years and 1 day of PRISION
The group of Leyson and the Soplente cousins continued to watch the A few minutes after the incident, Nicanor went to the adjacent store of MAYOR MEDIUM, to jointly and severally indemnify with accused Nicanor
singing contest being held nearby. Some of Leyson’s companions Malig-on and "ordered orange."14 When Malig-on asked him what Soplente the heirs of the deceased Joel Notarte the sum of P50,000.00,
were barangay tanods and volunteers, thus, they were equipped with happened, Nicanor explained that the strangers were provoking him by actual expenses of P12,500.00; they are also required to pay IN SOLIDUM
canes while Leyson was armed with a handgun.8 deliberately stepping on his feet. He claimed however that the incident was the hospitalization expenses of Eduardo Leyson VI plus costs.
While awaiting the announcement of winners at about twelve thirty in the nothing to him.15 SO ORDERED.24
early morning (12:30 a.m.) of 4 May 1988, the group of Leyson repaired to a At about past eleven o’clock in the evening (11:00 p.m.), before the Initially, both Nicanor and Rogelio filed their respective notices of appeal
place away from the stage to relieve themselves. Some of the spectators conclusion of the amateur singing contest, Rogelio and Nicanor decided to from the above decision. Later however, Nicanor withdrew his notice of
began dispersing at this point. Notarte and Besinga were along one side of go home. They related how Nicanor was harassed near the stage of the appeal and opted to merely move for a reconsideration of the portion of
San Pedro St. while the others, including Gulle, were on the left side. amateur show to their cousin, Susing and his wife, Bukay.16 the decision making him solidarily liable for monetary awards in favor of the
Suddenly, a commotion ensued as the Soplente cousins passed by. Gulle, victims.
In an Order25 dated 26 June 1996, the lower court granted Nicanor’s motion A Yes, sir. Leading, Your Honor.
thereby totally absolving him from both criminal and civil liability. Thus, Q Do you know that person? Q The question is, were you able to identify the person.
only Rogelio’s appeal to the CA remained. Concluding that there was no A Yes, sir. Court:
unlawful aggression on the part of Notarte which would justify Rogelio’s Q Is he present in Court now? Already answered.
claim of self-defense, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Hence, A Yes, sir. Q This person, you said, stabbed you, is he in court now?
Rogelio’s recourse to this Court. Q Will you please point him out to the Court? A Yes, sir.
In his petition, Rogelio claims that the CA erred when it held that on the A That person, sir. (Witness points to a person seated on the accused Q Will you point him out?
basis of unlawful aggression alone, Rogelio’s evidence fell short of being bench, who, when asked his name, answered Nicanor Soplente.)29 A Those two persons sitting over there. (Witness is pointing to the two
clear and convincing.26 Rogelio vehemently argues that a holistic Besinga testified as follows: persons sitting on the accused bench, who, when asked their names,
appreciation of the evidence as presented by both the prosecution and the Q Were you standing somewhere in that street at that particular time at answered Rogelio Soplente and Nicanor Soplente.
defense will show that self-defense lies in his favor.27 12:30 o’clock in the early morning of May 4, 1988? Q Of the two, Rogelio Soplente and Nicanor Soplente, who stabbed you?
Doctrinally, findings of fact of trial courts are accorded the highest respect A We were standing in front of the residence of Ventura. A Rogelio, sir.
and weight. It is the peculiar province of the trial court to determine the Q While you were there standing along that street in front of the residence ....
credibility of witnesses and related questions of fact because of its superior of Ventura as you stated, do you remember if any extraordinary incident Q By the way, you said that two of them attacked you and you pointed to
advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of witnesses while happened? one of them as the Rogelio Soplente who personally stabbed you. How
testifying. Thus, it has become a well-settled rule that where the issue A Yes, sir. about the other one, what did he do?
touches on the credibility of witnesses or factual findings, the appellate Q Will you please tell this Court what happened? A He was the one who stabbed Joel Notarte.31
court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, unless some A I saw that Gingging and Joel were stabbed. Based on the foregoing, it is glaringly apparent that none of the main
facts or circumstances that may affect the result of the case have been Q When you said Gingging, whom are you referring to? prosecution witnesses ever identified Rogelio as the one who stabbed
overlooked.28 A I am referring to Eduardo Leyson VI. Notarte and caused his death. Rather, they pointed at Nicanor as the
In this case, a careful perusal of the records shows that the lower court Q Do you know who stabbed Eduardo Leyson VI? perpetrator of the crime against Notarte. The declarations made by the
overlooked material facts that would result in Rogelio’s exculpation from A Yes, sir. witnesses were categorical and they never even made an attempt to
liability. The lower courts failed to appreciate the fact that Rogelio’s Q Will you please tell this Honorable Court who stabbed Eduardo Leyson correct themselves. Yet, their categorical declarations were belied by the
testimony relative to his claim of self-defense stands uncontradicted. His VI? admission of Rogelio himself who candidly admitted his own acts. Said
testimony coupled with the circumstances surrounding this case sufficiently A Rogelio Soplente. declarations were also belied by the findings of the trial court which held
proves the claim of self-defense. Q Is this Rogelio Soplente present in court now? thus:
The three main witnesses for the prosecution, Gulle, Besinga and Leyson A Yes, sir. . . . The version given by Leyson that it was Rogelio who stabbed him and
categorically stated that it was Nicanor, not Rogelio who stabbed Notarte. Q Will you please point him out to the Court? Nicanor who stabbed Notarte who was standing less than a meter from him
Gulle testified thus: A That person, sir. (Witness is pointing to a person, who, when asked his a little bit to his back on the right side would not be supported by the actual
Q Mr. Gulle, do you still remember where were you on May 4, 1988 at name, answered Rogelio Soplente.) happening because it would appear that the stabbing which he said
about 12:30 o’clock early in the morning? Q You said a certain Joel was also stabbed, what is the family name of Joel? happened simultaneously is against reality because if it were true that
A I was at San Pedro St., Lagao, General Santos City. A Notarte. Rogelio and Nicanor were on the left side of Leyson and that Leyson was a
Q What were you doing there at that particular time and place? Q And have you seen who stabbed Joel Notarte? little bit forward with Notarte on his right it would have been unlikely if not
A I was standing beside my friends, Joel Notarte and Eduardo Leyson VI. Atty. Vencer: impossible for the two to simultaneously stab because he (Leyson) would
Q Aside from your friends, Joel Notarte and Eduardo Leyson VI, were there Leading, Your Honor. be blocking the way of Nicanor. What is more logical and believable is that
other persons present? Q Who stabbed Joel Notarte? after stabbing Leyson Rogelio immediately stabbed Notarte hitting him on
A Yes, sir. A Nicanor Soplente. the left side of his body below the armpit.32
Q What were you doing at that particular time? Q Is this Nicanor Soplente present in Court now? It has been ruled that the very act of giving false testimony impeaches that
A We were conversing. A Yes, sir. witness’ own testimony and the court is compelled to exclude it from all
Q While you were conversing with your friends which includes Eduardo Q Will you please point him out? consideration.33 The findings of the trial court coupled with the admission of
Leyson VI and Joel Notarte, do you remember of any extraordinary incident A That person seated on the accused bench. (Witness is pointing to a Rogelio himself as to who actually stabbed Notarte discredits the testimony
that happened in that early morning and at that particular place and time? person who, when asked his name, answered Nicanor Soplente.)30 of the prosecution witnesses. The veracity of their testimonies had been
A Yes, sir. Leyson, on the other hand testified thus: effectively destroyed.
Q Tell this Honorable Court what happened? Q Will you please tell us what unusual incident was that? Thus, left uncontradicted is the testimony of Rogelio admitting the act of
A Suddenly, Eduardo Leyson VI and Joel Notarte were stabbed. A There was trouble at the place where the amateur singing contest was stabbing Notarte. With the core of said testimony being the exculpatory
Q Did you see the person who suddenly stabbed Eduardo Leyson VI? held. claim of self-defense, however, it is burdened by its own weight.
A Yes, sir. Q Then, what happened next? In order for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must be
Q Is this person present in Court now? A I was stabbed, sir. One of my companions was also stabbed. present: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
A Yes, sir. Q Where were you specifically when you were stabbed? employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on
Q Will you please point him out to the court? A I was at the road, waiting for my younger brother. the part of the person defending himself.34
A He is there (witness is pointing to a person sitting on the accused bench Q Were you able to identify the person who stabbed you? The appellate court held that on the element of unlawful aggression alone,
who, when asked his name, answered Rogelio Soplente.) A Yes, sir. appellant’s (Rogelio’s) evidence relative thereto fell far short of being "clear
Q Did you see the person who stabbed Joel Notarte? Atty. Vencer: and convincing."35
We do not agree. friend, Leyson, being stabbed. Perhaps, this was the context in which the a fact that Rogelio had not done anything to provoke the victim prior to or
Rogelio’s testimony showed that there was indeed unlawful aggression on lower courts appreciated Rogelio’s claim of self-defense. After all, the at the time of the fatal encounter.41
the part of Notarte. The pertinent parts of the transcript of stenographic immediate vindication even of a stranger is recognized as a justifying All the elements of self-defense having been established through the
notes provide thus: circumstance. uncontradicted testimony of Rogelio, the reversal of the lower courts’
Q While you were walking, what happened? However, there is a wider context which should be appreciated. As decision is in order. Under the law, a person does not incur any criminal
A Suddenly, people were running. concluded by the trial court, the Soplente cousins were surrounded by liability if the act committed is in defense of his person; thus, Rogelio is
Q Running towards what direction? Leyson and his companions, some of whom were armed.37 Animosity entitled to an acquittal in this case.
A Towards me and they suddenly surrounded me. between these two sets had been fostered just a few hours earlier. Leyson WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and appellant
Q How many persons surrounded you? had drawn first and fired first. At this juncture, Rogelio had every reason to Rogelio Soplente is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. His immediate release
A More than ten (10) persons. believe that it was not only Leyson who meant him harm, but that Leyson’s is hereby ORDERED unless he is detained for some other lawful cause. No
Q And when these ten (10) persons surrounded you, what was the first companions were of the same mindset. The fact that Leyson’s aggression costs.
thing that happened? had already been repelled did not eliminate the threat to Rogelio’s well- SO ORDERED.
A One of them pointed at me and said, "Do you want to fight?" being in the hands of Leyson’s companions. The kicks employed by Notarte G.R. No. 144933            July 3, 2002
Q And when he uttered those words, what did you tell him? did nothing but remind Rogelio that the threats to his life or limb had not PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
A I told him, "We don’t want a fight, we are here to watch the amateur ceased, even if those from Leyson’s had. vs.
singing contest." The Court of Appeals implied that it has not been indubitably ascertained JERRY ANTONIO Y DIOLATA, accused-appellant.
Q And after telling him that, what did this person who pointed to you and that Notarte had kicked Rogelio, or that Notarte was armed or otherwise YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
challenged you to a fight do? attacked Rogelio. But the same time, it cannot be disputed that Notarte was This is an appeal from the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue
A That person pulled his revolver and said "Do you want this?" no neutral bystander with no interest in the confrontation at hand. Notarte City, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. DU-6619 convicting accused-appellant
Q Simultaneously saying, "Do you want this," what happened? was one of Leyson’s confederates, present at the crucial moment for the of the crime of murder; sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
A When he pulled a gun from his waist, he immediately pointed his gun at same malevolent intentions towards Rogelio as that of his cohorts’. perpetua; and ordering him to pay the heirs of the deceased the amounts
me, and I simultaneously parried the gun and it burst. At the commencement of the attack, Rogelio could not have been obliged of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages, plus the
Q And what did you do? to view Notarte, or any other member of the posse for that matter, as a less costs of suit.
A After the gun burst, simultaneously I stopped (stabbed) him. menacing threat than Leyson. We have to understand that these events The information against accused-appellant reads:
Q Where was he hit? occurred spontaneously in a matter of seconds or even simultaneously. That on or about the 11th day of October, 1998, in the City of
A On his left upper arm. Rogelio bore no superhuman power to slow down time or to prevent the Mandaue, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Q That gun that burst, where was it directed at that time it was pulled? events from unfolding at virtual warp speed, to be able to assess with Honorable Court, the aforenamed accused, with deliberate
Prosecutor Oco: measured certainty the appropriate commensurate response due to each intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, did
Already answered, Your Honor. of his aggressors. Even those schooled in the legal doctrines of self-defense then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
Court: would, under those dire circumstances, be barely able to discern the legally and stab one Jomar Cardosa Ephan with a sharp bladed weapon,
Yes, It was pointed at him. defensible response and immediately employ the same. Our laws on self- thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wound at his vital
Q How far from your head was that gun when it burst? defense are supposed to approximate the natural human responses to portion namely:
Prosecutor Oco: danger, and not serve as our inconvenient rulebook based on which we "Stab wound (L) Lumbar Level of L1 & L2 with grade
No, Your Honor, please. We object. It is misleading. should acclimatize our impulses in the face of peril. IV Spleenic injury & grade II Renal (L) injury."
Court: It would be wrong to compel Rogelio to have discerned the appropriate Which caused his death soon thereafter.
Sustained. calibrated response to Notarte’s kicking when he himself was staring at the CONTRARY TO LAW.2
Q Where was the gun, what part of your body was the gun pointed? evil eye of danger. That would be a gargantuan demand even for the Upon arraignment on November 16, 1998, accused-appellant pleaded not
A At my face. coolest under pressure. The Court has been reasonable enough to guilty.3 Trial thereafter ensued.
Q And when he was hit, what happened to him? recognize some unreason as justifiable in the law of self-defense. As stated The facts as presented by the prosecution show that at 1:00 in the early
A I did not know anymore, sir because simultaneous to that, I received in the case of People v. Boholst-Caballero.38 morning of October 11, 1998, the victim, Jomar Ephan, was engaged in a
kicks. The law on self-defense embodied in any penal system in the civilized world drinking session with Reynaldo Ephan and Roselito Dacillo in front of a store
Q From where, left or right? finds justification in man’s natural instinct to protect, repel and save his in Barangay Pakna-an, Mandaue City. Accused-appellant arrived and bought
A From my right side. person or rights from impending danger or peril; it is based on that impulse cigarettes. Then, he ordered Jomar, Reynaldo and Roselito to count the
Q And that person who kicked you, after kicking you, what did he do? of self-preservation born to man and part of his nature as a human being.39 cigarettes he bought, but the three told accused-appellant to let the
A He continued attacking me. The second element which is reasonable necessity of the means employed storekeeper do the counting. Rebuked, accused-appellant left the store. He
Q So, what did you do? to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression was likewise present in the case returned minutes later and suddenly stabbed the victim at the back, after
A I stabbed him. at bar. The knife Rogelio habitually carried was the only weapon he had in which he immediately fled. The victim was rushed by his companions to the
Q Was he hit? his person.40 It was but logical that the knife would be the only thing he hospital but died the following day.4
A Yes, sir.36 could use against his attackers since the latter were collectively armed with Meanwhile, Eduardo Juban, a Barangay Tanod, was awakened by one of his
Based on the uncontradicted testimony of Rogelio, he was kicked by canes and a handgun. neighbors and was told that there was trouble at a nearby store. When
Notarte immediately after he stabbed Leyson. Viewed in an isolated Anent the third element of self-defense, there was no evidence to show Eduardo went out, he saw accused-appellant being chased by a crowd who
context, the act of kicking Rogelio by Notarte might seem insufficient as an that Rogelio had provoked Notarte into a fight. The lower court’s finding on were shouting, "thief." The group mauled accused-appellant when they
act of unlawful aggression, considering that Notarte just witnessed his this point is backed by the evidence on record. As the lower court held, it is caught up with him. Eduardo, however, pacified the mob and brought
accused-appellant to the barangay hall. Eduardo later learned from the witnesses were telling the truth. The trial court is thus in the best position A:         He was very drank (sic) and he fell down.
group that accused-appellant had stabbed somebody.5 to weigh conflicting testimonies. Therefore, unless the trial judge plainly Q:         Could you show to the Honorable Court the position?
The examination conducted by Dr. Reynaldo Baclig revealed that the victim overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might Could you demonstrate the position of the alleged victim that
sustained a stab wound near the spinal column, three inches above the affect the result of the case, his assessment on credibility must be was hit by the knife?
waist line, and died from spleen and renal injury and massive blood loss.6 respected.10 A:         When he struck me, I was able to evade the blow and by
On the other hand, the defense tried to prove that: at around 1:00 a.m. of A thorough review of the records of the case at bar shows that the trial his force and momentum, he fell towards the ground on all
October 11, 1998, accused-appellant was in the house of his friend, court did not miss any such material circumstance nor did it commit any force (sic) and so, I stabbed him this way (witness demonstrating
Fernando Gelig, at Pakna-an, Mandaue City. While they were drinking palpable error in upholding the facts as established by the prosecution. The by delivering a blow downwards) and I happen to hit him maybe
liquor, accused-appellant went out and bought cigarettes from a store positive and direct narration of the prosecution witnesses that accused- at the back.
across the street. As a token of friendship, accused-appellant offered the appellant suddenly stabbed the victim at the back, and that no altercation Q:         After hitting him with the knife what happened?
cigarettes to the people in front of the store, but nobody accepted his offer. preceded the attack, deserves full faith and credence. These witnesses were A:         I ran.15
Accused-appellant went back to the house of his friend. After a short while, not shown to have been impelled by ill-motive to falsely testify against The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated by the
he went back to the same store to buy "pulutan." For no reason at all, accused-appellant.11 Moreover, being friends and relatives of the deceased, trial court. Accused-appellant’s attack on the deceased from behind
somebody struck him with a stool hitting him on the left eyebrow. Accused- they would naturally be interested in having the real culprit punished.12 completely caught the latter by surprise. Accused-appellant therefore
appellant fell on the ground but the group of the deceased, who were then The trial court did not likewise err in rejecting accused-appellant’s self- effectively executed the assault without any risk to himself arising from the
in front of the store, ganged up on him. The deceased attempted to hit defense theory. Where an accused invokes self-defense, he thereby admits defense which the deceased might make.16
accused-appellant but because the former was very drunk, he missed and authorship of the crime. The burden of proof is thus shifted on him to prove The injury sustained by accused-appellant after he was allegedly struck by a
fell on his belly. It was at this point when accused-appellant got hold of a all the elements of self-defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part stool on the head will not entitle him to a mitigating circumstance. The
knife he saw under the table and stabbed the deceased at the back. of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the alleged injury hardly qualifies as mitigating circumstance analogous to
Thereafter, accused-appellant immediately fled but the crowd chased and aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the illness or defect that would diminish the exercise of will-power. More
mauled him. Fortunately, a Barangay Tanod came and stopped the mob.7 accused.13 importantly, accused-appellant failed to prove that he was assaulted by the
On July 12, 2000, the trial court promulgated the assailed judgment of In the case at bar, even if we sustain the version of accused-appellant that deceased and the latter’s companions.
conviction. The dispositive portion thereof reads: the initial act of aggression came from the group of the deceased, still we The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, the Court cannot uphold his plea of self-defense. As testified by accused-appellant amended by R.A. No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death. Since no
hereby finds the accused Jerry Antonio y Diolata GUILTY beyond himself, the deceased who was at that time very drunk tried to hit him but modifying circumstance was established by the prosecution, the trial court
reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER as defined and missed and fell on the ground. At that point, unlawful aggression ceased correctly imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as and it was no longer necessary for him to stab the deceased. It was appellant.
amended, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty accused-appellant, therefore, who became the aggressor when he, despite As to accused-appellant’s civil liability, the amount of P50,000.00, as
of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided the condition of the deceased, proceeded to stab the latter at the back. His indemnity ex delicto is affirmed. The moral damages awarded by the trial
for by law. Let him be given full credit for the preventive act can no longer be interpreted as an act of self-preservation but a court in the amount of P20,000.00 should, however, be increased to
imprisonment he has served. Likewise, the accused is ordered to perverse desire to kill.14 Hence, he cannot successfully claim the benefit of P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.17
indemnify the heirs of Jomar Ephan the sum of P50,000.00 as self-defense. Furthermore, if it were true that the companions of the WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial
civil indemnity ex delicto and the sum of P20,000.00 as moral deceased ganged up on him, his attack should have been directed against Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. DU-6619, finding
damages. The Court hereby orders too that the accused should them and not against the deceased who was already defenseless and lying accused-appellant Jerry Antonio y Diolata guilty beyond reasonable doubt
pay the cost of this suit. on the ground. Pertinent portion of accused-appellant’s testimony reads: of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
IT IS SO ORDERED.8 x x x           x x x           x x x of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the heirs of the deceased
Hence, this appeal based on the following grounds: Q:         What happened when you bought "pulutan" in the same Jomar C. Ephan the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
I. store where you bought the cigarettes? is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the moral damages to be paid
FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE THAT A:         I was struck by a person on the head. (Witness indicating by accused-appellant is increased to P50,000.00.
THE ACCUSED WAS THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR, HE SHOULD BE left eyebrow.) SO ORDERED.
CONVICTED FOR A LESSER OFFENSE AS CHARGED (sic). Q:         Were you bloodied when you were hit? .R. No. 103613       February 23, 2001
II. A:         Yes. I fell down. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE PRESENCE OF A Q:         When you fell down, what happened next? vs.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER AS A:         I stood up. COURT OF APPEALS and ELADIO C. TANGAN, respondents.
WOULD DIMINISH THE EXERCISE OF THE WILL-POWER OF THE Q:         Could you recognize the person who hit you with a chair x------------------x
OFFENDER WITHOUT HOWEVER DEPRIVING HIM OF on your left eyebrow? G.R. No. 105830       February 23, 2001
CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS.9 A:         No. ELADIO C. TANGAN, petitioner,
Faced with the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, the Q:         When you stood up after you were hit, what happened vs.
trial court’s choice of which version to believe is generally viewed as correct next? PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to A:         I saw a kitchen knife under the table upon standing up YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' and they were ganging up on me by striking me. So, I happened At around 11:30 p.m. of December 1, 1984, Navy Captain Eladio C. Tangan
demeanor and deportment on the witness stand, and the manner in which to have stab (sic) him. was driving alone on Roxas Boulevard heading south. He had just come
they gave their testimonies, and therefore could better discern if such Q:         What was the position of the person that you stabbed? from Buendia Avenue on an intelligence operation. At the same time,
Generoso Miranda, a 29-year old optometrist, was driving his car in the Ann Borromeo and Rosalina Cruz, helping his nephew board a taxi. Manuel Tangan's petition for review, in order to avoid taking contradictory
same direction along Roxas Boulevard with his uncle, Manuel Miranda, suggested that Generoso be brought to the hospital in his car. He was positions.18
after coming from the Ramada Hotel. Generoso was moving ahead of rushed to the Philippine General Hospital but he expired on the In the recent case of People v. Velasco and Galvez,19 we held that the
Tangan. Suddenly, firecrackers were thrown in Generoso's way, causing him way.1âwphi1.nêt prosecution cannot avail of the remedies of special civil action on certiorari,
to swerve to the right and cut Tangan's path. Tangan blew his horn several Tangan was charged with the crime of murder with the use of an unlicensed petition for review on certiorari, or appeal in criminal cases. Previous to
times. Generoso, slowed down to let Tangan pass. Tangan accelerated and firearm.2 After a reinvestigation, however, the information was amended to that, we categorically ruled that the writ of certiorari cannot be used by the
overtook Generoso, but when he got in front, Tangan reduced speed. homicide with the use of a licensed firearm, 3 and he was separately charged State in a criminal case to correct a lower court's factual findings or
Generoso tried four or five times to overtake on the right lane but Tangan with illegal possession of unlicensed firearm.4 On arraignment, Tangan evaluation of the evidence.20
kept blocking his lane. As he approached Airport Road, Tangan slowed entered a plea of not guilty in the homicide case, but moved to quash the Rule 117, Section 7, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, is clear:
down to make a U-tum. Generoso passed him, pulled over and got out of information for illegal possession of unlicensed firearm on various grounds. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. - When an
the car with his uncle. Tangan also stopped his car and got out. As the The motion to quash was denied, whereupon he filed a petition for accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
Mirandas got near Tangan's car, Generoso loudly retorted, " Putang ina certiorari with this Court.5 On November 5, 1987, said petition was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
mo, bakit mo ginigitgit ang sasakyan ko?" Generoso and Tangan then dismissed and the joint trial of the two cases was ordered.6 by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or
exchanged expletives. Tangari pointed his hand to Generoso and the latter During the trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the information or other fom1al charge sufficient in form and
slapped it, saying, "Huwag mo akong dinuduro! Sino ka ba, ano ba ang following: that the amount of P126,000.00 was incurred for the funeral and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had
pinagmamalaki mo?" Tangan countered, "Ikaw, ano ang gusto mo?" With burial expenses of the victim;7 that P74,625.00 was incurred for attorneys pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused
this, Tangan went to his car and got his .38 caliber handgun on the front fees; and that the heirs of Generoso suffered moral damages, the amount or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution
seat. The subsequent events per account of the parties' respective of which is left for the courts to determine. After trial, the lower court for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same
witnesses were conflicting: acquitted Tangan of illegal possession of firearm, but convicted him of or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily
According to the prosecution witnesses, particularly, Mary Ann homicide. The privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self- includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the
Borromeo, Rosalia Cruz and Manuel Miranda, the accused defense and the ordinary mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation former complaint or information.
pointed his gun at Generoso Miranda and when Manuel on the part of the offended party and of passion and obfuscation were However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to
Miranda tried to intervene, the accused pointed his gun at appreciated in his favor; consequently, the trial court ordered him to suffer another prosecution for an offense which, necessarily includes
Manuel Miranda, and after that the accused pointed again the an indeterminate penalty of two (2) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, the offense charged in the former complaint or information
gun to Generoso Miranda, the accused shot Generoso Miranda to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as maximum, under any of the following instances:
at a distance of about a meter but because the arm of the and to indemnify the heirs of the victim.8 Tangan was released from (a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising
accused was extended, the muzzle of the gun reached to about detention after the promulgation of judgment and was allowed bail in the from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;
more or less one foot away from the body of Generoso Miranda. homicide case. (b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or
The shot hit the stomach of Generoso Miranda causing the latter Private complainants, the heirs of Generoso Miranda, filed a petition for were discovered only after a pleas was entered in the former
to fall and while still conscious, Generoso Miranda told Manuel review with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 102677, challenging the civil complaint or information; or
Miranda, his uncle, to get the gun. Manuel Miranda grappled for aspect of the court a quo's decision, but the same was dismissed for being (c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
the possession of the gun and during their grappling, Rosalia premature. On the other hand, Tangan appealed to the Court of Appeals, consent of the fiscal and of the offended party, except as
Cruz intervened and took hold of the gun and after Rosalia Cruz which affirmed the judgment of the trial court but increased the award of provided in section 1(f) of Rule 116.
has taken hold of the gun, a man wearing a red T-shirt took the civil indemnity to P50,000.00.10 His subsequent motion for reconsideration In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or
gun from her. The man in T-shirt was chased by Manuel Miranda and a motion to cite the Solicitor General in contempt were denied by the serves in whole or in part the judgment, he shall be credited
who was able to get the gun where the man in red T-shirt placed Court of Appeals.11 with the same in the event of conviction for the graver offense.
it. The office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the prosecution, alleging Based on the foregoing, the Solicitor General's petition for certiorari under
On the other hand, the defense, particularly the accused and his grave abuse of discretion, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rule 65, praying that no mitigating circumstance be appreciated in favor of
witness by the name of Nelson Pante claimed that after the gun docketed as G.R. No.103613, naming as respondents the Court of Appeals accused-appellant and that the penalty imposed on him be correspondingly
was taken by the accused from inside his car, the Mirandas and Tangan, where it prayed that the appellate court's judgment be increased, constitutes a violation of Tangan's right against double jeopardy
started to grapple for possession of the gun and during the modified by convicting accused-appellant of homicide without appreciating and should be dismissed.
grappling, and while the two Mirandas were trying to wrest in his favor any mitigating circumstance.12 Subsequently, the Office of the We now come to the petition for review filed by Tangan. It is noteworthy
away the gun from the accused, they fell down at the back of Solicitor General, this time acting for public respondent Court of Appeals, that during the trial, petitioner Tangan did not invoke self-defense but
the car of the accused. According to the accused, he lost the filed a motion for extension to file comment to its own petition for claimed that Generoso was accidentally shot. As such, the burden of
possession of the gun after falling at the back of his car and as certiorari.13 Discovering its glaring error, the Office of the Solicitor General proving self-defense,21 which normally would have belonged to Tangan, did
soon as they hit the ground, the gun fell, and it exploded hitting later withdrew its motion for extension of time. 14 Tangan filed a Reply not come into play. Although Tangan must prove his defense of accidental
Generoso Miranda.1 asking that the case be submitted for decision.15 firing by clear and convincing evidence,22 the burden of proving the
After the gun went off, Tangan ran away. Meanwhile, Generoso lay on the Meanwhile, Tangan filed a separate petition for review under Rule 45, commission of the crime remained in the prosecution.
ground bloodied. His uncle, Manuel, looked for the gun and ran after docketed as G.R. No. 105830.16 Since the petition for certiorari filed by the Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals appreciated in favor of Tangan
Tangan, joining the mob that had already pursued him. Tangan found a Solicitor General remained unresolved, the two cases were the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense under
policeman who allowed him to enter his patrol car. Manuel arrived and told consolidated.17 The Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation in Article 13 (1), in relation to Article 11 (1), of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
the policeman that Tangan had just shot his nephew. Then he went back to G.R. No. 105830, asking that it be ex6used from filing a comment to ARTICLE 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not
where Generoso lay and there found two ladies, later identified as Mary incur any criminal liability:
 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided Equally, when a person fabricates a story, he usually adopts a simple compelled to pull the trigger in answer to the instinct of self-
that the following circumstances concur: account because a complex one might lead to entanglement from which he preservation.34
First. Unlawful aggression. may find it hard to extricate himself. Along the same line, the experience of No convincing reason appears for the Court to depart from these factual
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means the courts and the general observations of humanity teach us that the findings, the same being ably supported by the evidence on record. In
employed to prevent or repel it. natural limitations of our inventive faculties are such that if a witness violent deaths caused by gunshot wounds, the medical report or the
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of delivers in court a false narrative containing numerous details, he is almost autopsy on the cadaver of the victim must as much as possible narrate the
the person defending himself. certain to fall into fatal inconsistencies to make statements which can be observations on the wounds examined. It is material in determining the
xxx      xxx      xxx readily refuted, or to expose in his demeanor the falsity of his truthfulness of the events narrated by the witnesses presented. It is not
ARTICLE 13. Mitigating Circumstances. - The following are message.31 Aside from this, it is not also unusual that the witness may have enough that the witness looks credible and assumes that he indeed
mitigating circumstances: been coached before he is called to the stand to testify. witnessed the criminal act. His narration must be substantiated by the
1. Those mentioned in the preceding Chapter, when all the Somewhere along the painstaking review of the evidence on record, one physical evidence available to the court.
requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal version rings the semblance of truth, not necessarily because it is the The medical examiner testified that the distance between the muzzle of the
liability in the respective cases are not attendant. absolute truth, but simply because it is the best approximation of the truth gun and the target was about 2 inches but definitely not more than 3
Incomplete self-defense is not considered as a justifying act, but merely a based on the declarations of witnesses as corroborated by material inches. Based on the point of exit and the trajectory transit of the wound,
mitigating circumstance; hence, the burden of proving the crime charged in evidence. Perforce, the other version must be rejected. Truth and the victim and the alleged assailant were facing each other when the shot
the information is not shifted to the accused.23 In order that it may be falsehood, it has been well said, are not always opposed to each other like was made and the position of the gun was almost perpendicular when
successfully appreciated, however, it is necessary that a majority of the black and white, but oftentimes, and by design, are made to resemble each fired.35 These findings disprove Tangan's claim of accidental shooting. A
requirements of self-defense be present, particularly the requisite of other so as to be hardly distinguishable. 32 Thus, after analyzing the revolver is not prone to accidental firing because of the nature of its
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.24 Unlawful aggression by itself conflicting testimonies of the witnesses, the trial court found that: mechanism, unless it was already first cocked and pressure was exerted on
or in combination with either of the other two requisite suffices to establish When the accused took the gun from his car and when he tried the trigger. If it were uncocked, then considerable pressure had to be
incomplete self-defense. Absent the unlawful aggression, there can never to get out of the car and the two Mirandas saw the accused applied on the trigger to fire the revolver.36
be self-defense, complete or incomplete,25 because if there is nothing to already holding the gun, they started to grapple for the Having established that the shooting was not accidental, the next issue to
prevent or repel, the other two requisites of defense will have no basis.26 possession of the gun that it went off hitting Generoso Miranda be resolved is whether Tangan acted in incomplete self-defense. The
There is no question that the bullet which hit the victim was fired from the at the stomach. The court believes that contrary to the element of unlawful aggression in self-defense must not come from the
caliber. 38, which was issued to Tangan by the Philippine Navy. The cause of testimony of the accused, he never lost possession of the gun for person defending himself but from the victim.
death was severe hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound of the if he did and when the gun fell to the ground, it will not first A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient. 37 Likewise, the
abdomen, caused by the bullet fired from a gun of the said caliber. The explode or if it did, somebody is not holding the same, the exchange of insulting words and invectives between Tangan and Generoso
prosecution claimed that Tangan shot the victim point-blank in the stomach trajectory of the bullet would not be perpendicular or Miranda, no matter how objectionable, could not be considered as unlawful
at a distance of about one foot. On the other hand, Tangan alleged that horizontal.33 aggression, except when coupled with physical assault. 38 There being no
when he grappled with Generoso and Manuel Miranda for possession of The Court of Appeals agreed - lawful aggression on the part of either antagonists, the claim of incomplete
the gun, it fell to the ground and accidentally fired, hitting the victim. The finding of the lower court that Generoso Miranda III was self-defense falls. Tangan undoubtedly had possession of the gun, but the
When the testimonies of witnesses in open court are conflicting in shot while the accused and the Mirandas were grappling for the Mirandas tried to wrestle the gun from him. It may be said that the former
substantial points, the calibration of the records on appeal becomes possession of the gun immediately after the accused had taken had no intention of killing the victim but simply to retain possession of his
difficult. It is the word of one party against the word of the other. The his gun from inside his car and before the three allegedly fell to gun. However, the fact that the victim subsequently died as a result of the
reviewing tribunal relies on the cold and mute pages of the records, unlike the ground behind the car of the accused is borne out by the gunshot wound, though the shooter may not have the intention to kill, does
the trial court which had the unique opportunity of observing first-hand record. The court also agrees with the court below that it was not absolve him from culpability. Having caused the fatal wound, Tangan is
that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the accused-appellant who shot and killed Generoso Miranda III. responsible for all the consequences of his felonious act. He brought out
the stand while testifying.27 The trial court's assessments of the credibility If the accused-appellant did not shoot Generoso III during the the gun, wrestled with the Mirandas but anticipating that the gun may be
of witnesses is accorded great weight and respect on appeal and is binding scuffle, he would have claimed accidental killing by alleging that taken from him, he fired and fled.
on this Court,28 particularly when it has not been adequately demonstrated his gun exploded during the scuffle instead of falsely testifying The third requisite of lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
that significant facts and circumstances were shown to have been that he and the Mirandas fell to the ground behind his car and person defending himself is not supported by evidence. By repeatedly
overlooked or disregarded by the court below which, if considered, might the gun exploded in the possession of Manuel Miranda. The blocking the path of the Mirandas for almost five times, Tangan was in
affect the outcome hereof.29 The rationale for this has been adequately theory of the prosecution that the shooting took place while the effect the one who provoked the former. The repeated blowing of horns,
explained in that, three were grappling for the possession of the gun beside the assuming it was done by Generoso, may be irritating to an impatient driver
The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses car of appellant is completely in harmony with the findings and but it certainly could not be considered as creating so powerful an
through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, testimony of Dr. Ibarrola regarding the relative position of the inducement as to incite provocation for the other party to act violently.
such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden three and the precarious nearness of the victim when accused- The appreciation of the ordinary mitigating circumstances of sufficient
pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant appellant pulled the trigger of his gun. Dr. Ibarrola explained provocation and passion and obfuscation under Article 13, paragraphs 4
answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive that the gun was about two (2) inches from the entrance wound and 6,39 have no factual basis. Sufficient provocation as a requisite of
glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere and that its position was almost perpendicular when it was fired. incomplete self-defense is different from sufficient provocation as a
or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the It was in fact the closeness of the Mirandas vis-à-vis appellant mitigating circumstance. As an element of self-defense, it pertains to its
yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full during the scuffle for the gun that the accused-appellant was absence on the part of the person defending himself; while as a mitigating
realization of the solemnity of an oath, and carriage and mien.30 circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the part of the offended party.
Besides, only one mitigating circumstance can arise out of one and the lower degree which is prision mayor with a range of from six (6) years and (b) In Criminal Case No. 1816, he is hereby sentenced
same act.40 Assuming for the sake of argument that the blowing of horns, one (1) day to twelve (12) years. 51 Hence, petitioner Tangan is sentenced to to RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the heirs of
cutting of lanes or overtaking can be considered as acts of provocation, the an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision the deceased Flaviano Rubia in the sum of
same were not sufficient. The word "sufficient" means adequate to excite a mayor, as minimum; to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) P12,000.00 as compensatory damages, P10,000.00 as
person to commit a wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. moral damages, P2,000.00 as attorney's fees, the
gravity.41 Moreover, Generoso's act of asking for an explanation from The death indemnity of P30,000.00 was correctly increased by the appellate offended party having been represent by a private
Tangan was not sufficient provocation for him to claim that he was court to P50,000.00 in line with jurisprudence. 52 Moral damages are prosecutor, and to pay the costs (p. 48, rec.).
provoked to kill or injure Generoso.42 awarded in criminal cases involving injuries if supported by evidence on The facts are summarized in the People's brief, as follows:
For the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation to be record,53 but the stipulation of the parties in this case substitutes for the At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, 1968,
appreciated, it is required that (1) there be an act, necessity of evidence in support thereof. Though not awarded below, the Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibanez
both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) victim's heirs are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 together with the two deceased Davis Fleischer and
said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the which is considered reasonable considering the pain and anguish brought Flaviano Rubia, were fencing the land of George
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the by his death.54 Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer. The
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.43 WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 103613 is DISMISSED. The appealed place was in the boundary of the highway and the
In the case at bar, Tangan could not have possibly acted upon an impulse decision subject of G.R. No. 105830 is AFFIRMED with the hacienda owned by George Fleischer. This is located
for there was no sudden and unexpected occurrence which wuld have following MODIFICATIONS: in the municipality of Maitum, South Cotabato. At the
created such condition in his mind to shoot the victim. Assuming that his (1) Tangan is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of
path was suddenly blocked by Generoso Miranda due to the firecrackers, it (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to appellant Mamerto Narvaez (pp. 179-182, t.s.n.,
can no longer be treated as a startling occurrence, precisely because he had fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day Pieza II). At that time, appellant was taking his rest,
already passed them and was already the one blocking their path. Tangan's of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with all the accessory but when he heard that the walls of his house were
acts were done in the spirit of revenge and lawlessness, for which no penalties. being chiselled, he arose and there he saw the
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation can arise. (2) Tangan is ordered to pay the victim's heirs P50,000.00 as civil fencing going on. If the fencing would go on,
With respect to the penalty, under the laws then existing, homicide was indemnity, P42,000.00 as funeral and burial expenses, P5,000.00 appellant would be prevented from getting into his
penalized with reclusion temporal,44 but if the homicide was committed as attorney's fees, and P50,000.00 as moral damages. house and the bodega of his ricemill. So he addressed
with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty shall be death. 45 The SO ORDERED. the group, saying 'Pare, if possible you stop
death penalty, however, cannot be imposed on Tangan because in the G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 April 20, 1983 destroying my house and if possible we will talk it
meantime, the 1987 Constitution proscribed the imposition of death PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, over what is good,' addressing the deceased Rubia,
penalty; and although it was later restored in 1994, the retroactive vs. who is appellant's compadre. The deceased Fleischer,
application of the death penalty is unfavorable to him. Previously the MAMERTO NARVAEZ, defendant-appellant. however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go
accused may be prosecuted for two crimes: (1) homicide or murder under The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. ahead.' Appellant apparently lost his equilibrium and
the Revised Penal Code and (2) illegal possession of firearm in its Gonzalo B. Callanta (counsel de oficio) for defendant-appellant. he got his gun and shot Fleischer, hitting him. As
aggravated form under P.D. 1866.46 Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards the jeep, and
P.D. 1866 was amended by R.A. No. 8294, 47 which provides that if an MAKASIAR, J.: knowing there is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at
unlicensed firearm is used in murder or homicide, such use of unlicensed This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Rubia, likewise hitting him (pp. 127-133, t.s.n.,
firearm shall be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance and no longer Cotabato, Branch I, in Criminal Cases Nos. 1815 and 1816 for murder which, Defense transcript). Both Fleischer and Rubia died as
considered as a separate offense,48 which means that only one offense shall after a joint trial, resulted in the conviction of the accused in a decision a result of the shotting' (pp. 9-14, t.s.n., Pieza I, pp. 8-
be punished - murder or homicide. However, this law cannot apply rendered on September 8, 1970, with the following pronouncement: 9, Appellant's Brief, p.161, rec.).
retroactively because it will result in the imposition on Tangan of the Thus, we have a crime of MURDER qualified by It appears, however, that this incident is intertwined with the long drawn
maximum period of the penalty. Moreover, under Rule 110, Section 8 of the treachery with the aggravating circumstance of out legal battle between the Fleischer and Co., Inc. of which deceased
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,49 the aggravating circumstance must evident premeditation offset by the mitigating Fleischer was the secretary-treasurer and deceased Rubia the assistant
be alleged in the information. Being favorable, this new rule can be given circumstance of voluntary surrender. The proper manager, on the one hand, and the land settlers of Cotabato, among whom
retroactive effect as they are applicable to pending cases.50 In any case, penalty imposable, therefore, is RECLUSION was appellant.
Tangan was acquitted of the illegal possession case. PERPETUA (Arts. 248 and 64, Revised Penal Code). From the available records of the related cases which had been brought to
Consequently, Tangan should be sentenced to suffer the penalty Accordingly, finding Mamerto Narvaez guilty beyond the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. Nos. 28858-R and 50583-R) and to this Court
of reclusion temporal. Pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, if reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, on certiorari (G.R. No. L-26757 and L-45504), WE take judicial notice of the
the prescribed penalty is composed of three periods, and there is neither (a) In Criminal Case No. 1815, he is hereby sentenced following antecedent facts:
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the medium period shall be to RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the heirs of Appellant was among those persons from northern and central Luzon who
applied. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence law, the maximum of the the deceased Davis Q. Fleischer in the sum of P went to Mindanao in 1937 and settled in Maitum, a former sitio of Kiamba
indeterminate penalty shall be that which, in view of the attendant 12,000.00 as compensatory damages, P 10,000.00 as and now a separate municipality of South Cotabato. He established his
circumstances, may be properly imposed, which in this case is reclusion moral damages, P 2,000.00 as attorney's fees, the residence therein, built his house, cultivated the area, and was among
temporal medium with an imprisonment range of from fourteen (14) years, offended party having been represented by a private those who petitioned then President Manuel L. Quezon to order the
eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) prosecutor, and to pay the costs; subdivision of the defunct Celebes Plantation and nearby Kalaong
months. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence shall be the next
Plantation totalling about 2,000 hectares, for distribution among the contract of lease with the company whereby he agreed to lease an area of Second Assignment of Error: That the court a quo
settlers. approximately 100 to 140 square meters of Lot No. 38 from the company also erred in convicting defendant-appellant although
Shortly thereafter, Fleischer and Company, headed by George W. Fleischer, (Exh. 9, p. 1, Folder of Exhibits for Defense) for a consideration of P16.00 he acted in defense of his rights (p. 20 of Appellant's
an American landowner in Negros Oriental, filed sales application No. monthly. According to him, he signed the contract although the ownership Brief, p. 145, rec.).
21983 on June 3, 1937 over the same area formerly leased and later of the land was still uncertain, in order to avoid trouble, until the question The act of killing of the two deceased by appellant is not disputed.
abandoned by Celebes Plantation Company, covering 1,017.2234 hectares. of ownership could be decided. He never paid the agreed rental, although Appellant admitted having shot them from the window of his house with
Meanwhile, the subdivision was ordered and a public land surveyor did the he alleges that the milling job they did for Rubia was considered payment. the shotgun which he surrendered to the police authorities. He claims,
actual survey in 1941 but the survey report was not submitted until 1946 On June 25, 1968, deceased Fleischer wrote him a letter with the following however, that he did so in defense of his person and of his rights, and
because of the outbreak of the second world war. According to the survey, tenor: therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability.
only 300 hectares Identified as Lots Nos. 22, 26 and 38, Ps. 176 Kiamba, You have not paid six months rental to Fleischers & Defense of one's person or rights is treated as a justifying circumstance
were set aside for Sales Application No. 21983, while the rest were Co., Inc. for that portion of land in which your house under Art. 11, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, but in order for it to be
subdivided into sublots of 5 to 6 hectares each to be distributed among the and ricemill are located as per agreement executed appreciated, the following requisites must occur:
settlers (pp. 32-33, G.R. No. L-45504). on February 21, 1967. You have not paid as as even First. Unlawful aggression;
The 300 hectares set aside for the sales application of Fleischer and after repeated attempts of collection made by Mr. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
Company was declared open for disposition, appraised and advertised for Flaviano Rubia and myself. employed to prevent or repel it;
public auction. At the public auction held in Manila on August 14, 1948, In view of the obvious fact that you do not comply Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
Fleischer and Company was the only bidder for P6,000.00. But because of with the agreement, I have no alternative but to the person defending himself (Art. 11, par. 1, Revised
protests from the settlers the corresponding award in its favor was held in terminate our agreement on this date. Penal Code, as amended).
abeyance, while an investigator was sent by the Director of Lands to I am giving you six months to remove your house, The aggression referred to by appellant is the angry utterance by deceased
Kiamba in the person of Atty. Jose T. Gozon Atty. Gozon came back after ten ricemill, bodega, and water pitcher pumps from the Fleischer of the following words: "Hindi, sigue, gademit, avante", in answer
days with an amicable settlement signed by the representative of the land of Fleischers & Co., Inc. This six- month period to his request addressed to his compadre, the deceased Rubia, when he
settlers. This amicable settlement was later repudiated by the settlers, but shall expire on December 31, 1966. said, "Pare, hinto mona ninyo at pag-usapan natin kung ano ang mabuti"
the Director of Lands, acting upon the report of Atty. Gozon, approved the In the event the above constructions have not been (pp. 227-229, t.s.n., Vol. 6). This was in reaction to his having been
same and ordered the formal award of the land in question to Fleischer and removed within the six- month period, the company awakened to see the wall of his house being chiselled. The verbal exchange
Company. The settlers appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural shall cause their immediate demolition (Exhibit 10, p. took place while the two deceased were on the ground doing the fencing
Resources, who, however, affirmed the decision in favor of the company. 2, supra). and the appellant was up in his house looking out of his window (pp. 225-
On May 29, 1950, the settlers filed Civil Case No. 240 in the Court of First On August 21, 1968, both deceased, together with their laborers, 227, supra). According to appellant, Fleischer's remarks caused this reaction
Instance of Cotabato which then consisted only of one sala, for the purpose commenced fencing Lot 38 by putting bamboo posts along the property line in him: "As if, I lost my senses and unknowingly I took the gun on the bed
of annulling the order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources parallel to the highway. Some posts were planted right on the concrete and unknowingly also I shot Mr. Fleischer, without realizing it, I shot Mr.
which affirmed the order of the Director of Lands awarding the contested drier of appellant, thereby cutting diagonally across its center (pp. 227-228, Fleischer" (p. 132, supra). As for the shooting of Rubia, appellant testified:
land to the company. The settlers as plaintiffs, lost that case in view of the t.s.n., Vol. 2), with the last post just adjacent to appellant's house (p. 231, When I shot Davis Fleischer, Flaviano Rubia was
amicable settlement which they had repudiated as resulting from threats t.s.n., supra). The fence, when finished, would have the effect of shutting nailing and upon hearing the shot, Mr. Rubia looked
and intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation and fraudulent machination on off the accessibility to appellant's house and rice mill from the highway, at Mr. Fleischer and when Mr. Fleischer fell down,
the part of the company. They appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. since the door of the same opens to the Fleischers' side. The fencing Mr. Rubia ran towards the jeep and knowing that
No. 28858-R) which likewise affirmed on August 16, 1965 the decision of continued on that fateful day of August 22, 1968, with the installation of there was a firearm in the jeep and thinking that if he
the Court of First Instance in favor of the company. four strands of barbed wire to the posts. will take that firearm he will kill me, I shot at him (p.
This resulted in the ouster of the settlers by an order of the Court of First At about 2:30 p.m. on the said day, appellant who was taking a nap after 132, supra, Emphasis supplied).
Instance dated September 24, 1966, from the land which they had been working on his farm all morning, was awakened by some noise as if the wall The foregoing statements of appellant were never controverted by the
occupying for about 30 years. Among those ejected was the appellant who, of his house was being chiselled. Getting up and looking out of the window, prosecution. They claim, however, that the deceased were in lawful
to avoid trouble, voluntarily dismantled his house, built in 1947 at a cost of he found that one of the laborers of Fleischer was indeed chiselling the wall exercise of their rights of ownership over the land in question, when they
around P20,000.00, and transferred to his other house which he built in of his house with a crowbar (p. 129, t.s.n., Vol. 6), while deceased Rubia did the fencing that sealed off appellant's access to the highway.
1962 or 1963 near the highway. The second house is not far from the site of was nailing the barbed wire and deceased Fleischer was commanding his A review of the circumstances prior to the shooting as borne by the
the dismantled house. Its ground floor has a store operated by Mrs. June laborers. The jeep used by the deceased was parked on the highway. The evidence reveals that five persons, consisting of the deceased and their
Talens who was renting a portion thereof. He also transferred his store rest of the incident is narrated in the People's Brief as above-quoted. three laborers, were doing the fencing and chiselling of the walls of
from his former residence to the house near the highway. Aside from the Appellant surrendered to the police thereafter, bringing with him shotgun appellant's house. The fence they were putting up was made of bamboo
store, he also had a rice mill located about 15 meters east of the house and No. 1119576 and claiming he shot two persons (Exh. Pp. 31, Defense posts to which were being nailed strands of barbed wire in several layers.
a concrete pavement between the rice mill and the house, which is used for Exhibits). Obviously, they were using tools which could be lethal weapons, such as
drying grains and copra. Appellant now questions the propriety of his conviction, assigning the nail and hammer, bolo or bamboo cutter, pliers, crowbar, and other
On November 14, 1966, appellant was among the settlers on whose behalf following errors: necessary gadgets. Besides, it was not disputed that the jeep which they
Jose V. Gamboa and other leaders filed Civil Case No. 755 in the Court of First Assignment of Error: That the lower court erred used in going to the place was parked just a few steps away, and in it there
First Instance of Cotabato, Branch I. to obtain an injunction or annulment of in convicting defendant-appellant despite the fact was a gun leaning near the steering wheel. When the appellant woke up to
the order of award with prayer for preliminary injunction. During the that he acted in defense of his person; and the sound of the chiselling on his walls, his first reaction was to look out of
pendency of this case, appellant on February 21, 1967 entered into a the window. Then he saw the damage being done to his house,
compounded by the fact that his house and rice mill will be shut off from In any case, Fleischer had given him up to December 31, 1968 (Exh.10, p. 2, The crime committed is homicide on two counts. The qualifying
the highway by the fence once it is finished. He therefore appealed to Defense Exhibits) within which to vacate the land. He should have allowed circumstance of treachery cannot be appreciated in this case because of the
his compadre, the deceased Rubia, to stop what they were doing and to talk appellant the peaceful enjoyment of his properties up to that time, instead presence of provocation on the part of the deceased. As WE held earlier in
things over with him. But deceased Fleischer answered angrily with of chiselling the walls of his house and closing appellant's entrance and exit People vs. Manlapaz (55 SCRA 598), the element of a sudden unprovoked
'gademit' and directed his men to proceed with what they were doing. to the highway. attack is therefore lacking.
The actuation of deceased Fleischer in angrily ordering the continuance of The following provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines are in point: Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, "it must clearly appear that the
the fencing would have resulted in the further chiselling of the walls of Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired method of assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen with a
appellant's house as well as the closure of the access to and from his house through force or intimidation as long as there is a special view to the accomplishment of the act without risk to the assailant
and rice mill-which were not only imminent but were actually in progress. possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that from any defense that the party assailed might have made. This cannot be
There is no question, therefore, that there was aggression on the part of he has an action or a right to deprive another of the said of a situation where the slayer acted instantaneously ..." (People vs.
the victims: Fleischer was ordering, and Rubia was actually participating in holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the Cañete, 44 Phil. 481).
the fencing. This was indeed aggression, not on the person of appellant, but competent court, if the holder should refuse to WE likewise find the aggravating (qualifying) circumstance of evident
on his property rights. deliver the thing. premeditation not sufficiently established. The only evidence presented to
The question is, was the aggression unlawful or lawful? Did the victims have Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected prove this circumstance was the testimony of Crisanto Ibañez, 37 years old,
a right to fence off the contested property, to destroy appellant's house in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein married, resident of Maitum, South Cotabato, and a laborer of Fleischer
and to shut off his ingress and egress to his residence and the highway? he shall be protected in or restored to said and Company, which may be summarized as follows:
Article 30 of the Civil Code recognizes the right of every owner to enclose or possession by the means established by the laws and On August 20, 1968 (two days before the incident) at
fence his land or tenements. the Rules of Court (Articles 536 and 539, Civil Code of about 7:00 A.M., he was drying corn near the house
However, at the time of the incident on August 22, 1968, Civil Case no. 755 the Philippines). of Mr. and Mrs. Mamerto Narvaez at the crossing,
for annulment of the order of award to Fleischer and Company was still Conformably to the foregoing provisions, the deceased had no right to Maitum, South Cotabato, when the accused and his
pending in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. The parties could not destroy or cause damage to appellant's house, nor to close his accessibility wife talked to him. Mrs. Narvaez asked him to help
have known that the case would be dismissed over a year after the incident to the highway while he was pleading with them to stop and talk things them, as he was working in the hacienda. She further
on August 22, 1968, as it was dismissed on January 23, 1970 on ground over with him. The assault on appellant's property, therefore, amounts to told him that if they fenced their house, there is a
of res judicata, in view of the dismissal in 1965 (by the Court of Appeals) of unlawful aggression as contemplated by law. head that will be broken. Mamerto Narvaez added
Civil Case No. 240 filed in 1950 for the annulment of the award to the Illegal aggression is equivalent to assault or at least 'Noy, it is better that you will tell Mr. Fleischer
company, between the same parties, which the company won by virtue of threatened assault of immediate and imminent kind because there will be nobody who will break his head
the compromise agreement in spite of the subsequent repudiation by the (People vs. Encomiendas, 46 SCRA 522). but I will be the one.' He relayed this to Mr. Flaviano
settlers of said compromise agreement; and that such 1970 dismissal also In the case at bar, there was an actual physical invasion of appellant's Rubia, but the latter told him not to believe as they
carried the dismissal of the supplemental petition filed by the Republic of property which he had the right to resist, pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil were only Idle threats designed to get him out of the
the Philippines on November 28, 1968 to annul the sales patent and to Code of the Philippines which provides: hacienda (pp. 297-303, t.s.n., Vol. 2).
cancel the corresponding certificate of title issued to the company, on the Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has This single evidence is not sufficient to warrant appreciation of the
ground that the Director of Lands had no authority to conduct the sale due the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. As WE have
to his failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for publication. and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use consistently held, there must be "direct evidence of the planning or
The dismissal of the government's supplemental petition was premised on such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or preparation to kill the victim, .... it is not enough that premeditation be
the ground that after its filing on November 28, 1968, nothing more was prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical suspected or surmised, but the criminal intent must be evidenced by
done by the petitioner Republic of the Philippines except to adopt all the invasion or usurpation of his property (Emphasis notorious outward acts evincing the determination to commit the crime"
evidence and arguments of plaintiffs with whom it joined as parties- supplied). (People vs. Ordioles, 42 SCRA 238). Besides, there must be a "showing" that
plaintiffs. The reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying the accused premeditated the killing; that the culprit clung to their (his)
Hence, it is reasonable to believe that appellant was indeed hoping for a circumstance of self-defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph 1 premeditated act; and that there was sufficient interval between the
favorable judgment in Civil Case No. 755 filed on November 14, 1966 and of Article 11, Revised Penal Code. When the appellant fired his shotgun premeditation and the execution of the crime to allow them (him) to reflect
his execution of the contract of lease on February 21, 1967 was just to from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate upon the consequences of the act" (People vs. Gida, 102 SCRA 70).
avoid trouble. This was explained by him during cross-examination on to the attack. Moreover, the obvious bias of witness Crisanto Ibañez, as a laborer of the
January 21, 1970, thus: WE find, however, that the third element of defense of property is present, deceased Davis Fleischer, neutralizes his credibility.
It happened this way: we talked it over with my Mrs. i.e., lack of sufficient provocation on the part of appellant who was Since in the case at bar, there was no direct evidence of the planning or
that we better rent the place because even though defending his property. As a matter of fact, there was no provocation at all preparation to kill the victims nor that the accused premeditated the killing,
we do not know who really owns this portion to avoid on his part, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise and clung to his premeditated act, the trial court's conclusion as to the
trouble. To avoid trouble we better pay while waiting produced by the victims and their laborers. His plea for the deceased and presence of such circumstance may not be endorsed.
for the case because at that time, it was not known their men to stop and talk things over with him was no provocation at all. Evident premeditation is further negated by appellant pleading with the
who is the right owner of the place. So we decided Be that as it may, appellant's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, victims to stop the fencing and destroying his house and to talk things over
until things will clear up and determine who is really since not all the elements for justification are present. He should therefore just before the shooting.
the owner, we decided to pay rentals (p. 169, t.s.n., be held responsible for the death of his victims, but he could be credited But the trial court has properly appreciated the presence of the mitigating
Vol.6). with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to circumstance of voluntary surrender, it appearing that appellant
paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. surrendered to the authorities soon after the shooting.
Likewise, We find that passion and obfuscation attended the commission of moral and material suffering of appellant and his family deserves leniency one and before the end of the year 1957 the couple separated. Late in the
the crime. The appellant awoke to find his house being damaged and its as to his civil liability. evening of January 2, 1958, Francisco Caballero and two companions,
accessibility to the highway as well as of his rice mill bodega being closed. Furthermore, Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code requires a person namely, Ignacio Barabad and Kakong Sacay, drank "tuba" in a certain house
Not only was his house being unlawfully violated; his business was also in convicted of prision correccional or arrests mayor and fine who has no in barrio Ipil, Ormoc City. At about midnight, Francisco Caballero and his
danger of closing down for lack of access to the highway. These property with which to meet his civil liabilities to serve a subsidiary companions proceeded home. On the way, they saw Francisco's wife,
circumstances, coming so near to the time when his first house was imprisonment at the rate of one (1) day for each P 2.50. However, the Cunigunda, standing at the corner of the yard of Igmedio Barabad
dismantled, thus forcing him to transfer to his only remaining house, must amendment introduced by Republic Act No. 5465 on April 21, 1969 made Cunigunda called Francisco and when the latter approached her, Cunigunda
have so aggravated his obfuscation that he lost momentarily all reason the provisions of Art. 39 applicable to fines only and not to reparation of suddenly stabbed Francisco with a knife marked by the prosecution as its
causing him to reach for his shotgun and fire at the victims in defense of his the damage caused, indemnification of consequential damages and costs of Exhibit C. Francisco called for help to his two companions who upon seeing
rights. Considering the antecedent facts of this case, where appellant had proceedings. Considering that Republic Act 5465 is favorable to the accused that Francisco was wounded, brought him to the St. Jude Hospital. 3 Dr.
thirty years earlier migrated to this so-called "land of promise" with dreams who is not a habitual delinquent, it may be given retroactive effect Cesar Samson, owner of the hospital, personally attended to the victim and
and hopes of relative prosperity and tranquility, only to find his castle pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. found a "punctured wound on the left lumbar region measuring 1 inch
crumbling at the hands of the deceased, his dispassionate plea going WHEREFORE, FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT externally" (Exhibit B). First aid was given, but because there was a need for
unheeded-all these could be too much for any man-he should be credited OF ONLY TWO (2) HOMICIDES, MITIGATED BY THE PRIVILEGED blood transfusion and the facilities of the hospital were inadequate to
with this mitigating circumstance. EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE AS WELL AS provide the necessary treatment, Dr. Samson suggested that the patient be
Consequently, appellant is guilty of two crimes of homicide only, the killing BY TWO (2) GENERIC MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY transported to Cebu City.4 In the meantime, Cunigunda Caballero had gone
not being attended by any qualifying nor aggravating circumstance, but SURRENDER AND OBFUSCATION, WITHOUT ANY AGGRAVATING to the Police Department of Ormoc City, surrendered to desk sergeant
extenuated by the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete CIRCUMSTANCE, APPELLANT IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO SUFFER AN Restituto Mariveles and informed the latter that she stabbed her
defense-in view of the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the IMPRISONMENT OF FOUR (4) MONTHS OF ARRESTO MAYOR, TO husband.5 While Francisco Caballero was confined at the hospital, he was
victims and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the appellant-and INDEMNIFY EACH GROUP OF HEIRS OF DAVIS FLEISCHER AND OF FLAVIANO interrogated by Patrolman Francisco Covero concerning the identity of his
by two generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and passion RUBIA IN THE SUM OF FOUR THOUSAND (P 4,000.00) PESOS, WITHOUT assailant and he pointed to his wife Cunigunda. The questions propounded
and obfuscation. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT AND WITHOUT ANY AWARD FOR MORAL by Pat. Covero and the answers given by the victim were written down in a
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty for homicide DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. piece of paper on which the victim affixed his thumbmark (Exhibit D) in the
as reclusion temporal. Pursuant to Article 69, supra, the penalty lower by CONSIDERING THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN UNDER DETENTION FOR presence of his brother, Cresencio Caballero, and another policeman,
one or two degrees shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by ALMOST FOURTEEN (14) YEARS NOW SINCE HIS VOLUNTARY SURRENDER Francisco Tomada.6 On January 4, 1958, Francisco Caballero was brought to
reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same. ON AUGUST 22,1968, HIS IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS HEREBY ORDERED. NO Cebu City on board the "MV Ormoc" but the trip proved futile because the
Considering that the majority of the requirements for defense of property COSTS. victim died at noontime of the same day from the stab wound sustained by
are present, the penalty may be lowered by two degrees, i.e., to prision SO ORDERED. him.7
correccional And under paragraph 5 of Article 64, the same may further be G.R. No. L-23249 November 25, 1974 Appellant, on the other hand, pleads that We discard the proof adduced by
reduced by one degree, i.e., arresto mayor, because of the presence of two THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, the prosecution and believe instead what she declared before the trial
mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance. vs. judge briefly summarized as follows:
The civil liability of the appellant should be modified. In the case of Zulueta CUNIGUNDA BOHOLST-CABALLERO, accused-appellant. After her marriage to Francisco Caballero on June 7, 1956, appellant lived
vs. Pan American World Airways (43 SCRA 397), the award for moral Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General with her husband in the house of her parents in barrio Ipil, Ormoc City, and
damages was reduced because the plaintiff contributed to the gravity of Florencio Villamor and Attorney Concepcion F. Torrijos for plaintiff-appellee. their marriage, although not a harmonious one, was blessed with a
defendant's reaction. In the case at bar, the victims not only contributed Accused-appellant in her own behalf. daughter; her married life was marked by frequent quarrels caused by her
but they actually provoked the attack by damaging appellant's properties husband's "gambling, drinking, and serenading", and there were times
and business. Considering appellant's standing in the community, being MUÑOZ PALMA, J.:p when he maltreated and beat her; after more than a year she and her
married to a municipal councilor, the victims' actuations were apparently Convicted for having killed her husband, Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero seeks husband transferred to a house of their own, but a month had hardly
designed to humiliate him and destroy his reputation. The records disclose a reversal of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Ormoc City passed when Francisco left her and her child, and she had to go back to live
that his wife, councilor Feliza Narvaez, was also charged in these two cases finding her guilty of PARRICIDE and sentencing her "to suffer an with her parents who bore the burden of supporting her and her child; in
and detained without bail despite the absence of evidence linking her to indeterminate imprisonment of from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY the month of November, 1957, her daughter became sick and she went to
the killings. She was dropped as a defendant only upon motion of the of prision mayor in its medium period, as the minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) her husband and asked for some help for her sick child but he drove her
prosecution dated October 31, 1968. (p. 14, CFI rec. of Crim. Case No. YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal in its away and said "I don't care if you all would die"; in the evening of January 2,
1816), but acted upon on November 4, 1968 (p. 58, CFI rec. of Criminal Case medium period as the maximum; to indemnify the heirs of Francisco 1958, she went out carolling with her friend, Crispina Barabad, and several
No. 1815). Caballero in the sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00) without men who played the musical instruments; at about 12:00 o'clock midnight
Moreover, these cases arose out of an inordinate desire on the part of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs", and they divided the proceeds of the carolling in the house of Crispina Barabad
Fleischer and Company, despite its extensive landholdings in a Central prays for an acquittal based on her plea of self-defense.1 after which she went home, but before she could leave the vicinity of the
Visayan province, to extend its accumulation of public lands to the The Solicitor General however asks for the affirmance of the appealed house of Crispina, she met her husband Francisco, who upon seeing her,
resettlement areas of Cotabato. Since it had the capability-financial and decision predicated on the following testimonial and documentary evidence held her by the collar of her dress and asked her: "Where have you been
otherwise-to carry out its land accumulation scheme, the lowly settlers, presented by the prosecution before the trial court: prostituting? You are a son of a bitch."; she replied: "What is your business.
who uprooted their families from their native soil in Luzon to take Cunigunda Boholst and Francisco Caballero, both at the age of twenty, were Anyway you have already left us. You have nothing to do with us"; upon
advantage of the government's resettlement program, but had no sufficient married on June 7, 1956, at a ceremony solemnized by the parish priest of hearing these words Francisco retorted: "What do you mean by saying I
means to fight the big landowners, were the ones prejudiced. Thus, the the Roman Catholic Church in Ormoc City.2 The marriage was not a happy have nothing to do with you. I will kill you all, I will kill you all"; Francisco
then held her by the hair, slapped her face until her nose bled, and pushed there was no wound or injury on appellant's body treated by any physician: us. You have nothing to do with
her towards the ground, to keep herself from falling she held on to his waist c) appellant's insistence that the weapon used by her was Moro hunting us."
and as she did so her right hand grasped the knife tucked inside the belt knife and not Exh. C is incredible; d) she gave contradictory statements Q When Francisco heard these
line on the left side of his body; because her husband continued to push her concerning the report made by her to the police authorities that she was words, what did he do?
down she fell on her back to the ground; her husband then knelt over her, choked by her husband; and e) her husband's abandonment of her and her A Francisco said "What do you
held her neck, and choked her saying. "Now is the time I can do whatever I child afforded the motive behind appellant's mean by saying l have nothing
want. I will kill you"; because she had "no other recourse" as she was being attack. 12 to do with you. I will kill you all.
choked she pulled out the knife of her husband and thrust it at him hitting We are constrained, however, to disagree with the court a quo and depart I will kill you all."
the left side of his body near the "belt line" just above his left thigh; when from the rule that appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of Q And then, what happened?
she finally released herself from the hold of her husband she ran home and the trial court on facts testified to by the witnesses. A He held my hair and slapped
on the way she threw the knife; in the morning of January 3, she went to An examination of the record discloses that the trial judge overlooked and my face twice. Then I staggered
town, surrendered to the police, and presented the torn and blood-stained did not give due importance to one piece of evidence which more than the and my nose was bleeding.
dress worn by her on the night of the incident (see Exhibit I); Pat. Cabral testimony of any witness eloquently confirms the narration of appellant on Q Do you mean to say that
then accompanied her to look for the weapon but because they could not how she happened to stab her husband on that unfortunate night. We refer blood flowed out of your nose?
find it the policeman advised her to get any knife, and she did, and she gave to the location of the wound inflicted on the victim. A Yes, sir.
a knife to the desk sergeant which is the knife now marked as Exhibit C for Appellant's account of that fatal occurrence as given in her direct testimony Q After you were slapped twice
the prosecution.8 follows: and your nose begun to bleed,
The sole question thus presented in this appeal is: did appellant stab her Q At that precise time when what happened next?
husband in the legitimate defense of her person? you were going home to the A He held the front part of my
The law on self-defense embodied in any penal system in the civilized world place of your parents, did any dress just below the collar and
finds justification in man's natural instinct to protect, repel, and save his unusual incident occur? pushed me towards the
person or rights from impending danger or peril; it is based on that impulse A Yes, sir. ground. .
of self-preservation born to man and part of his nature as a human being. Q What was it? Q While your husband was
Thus, in the words of the Romans of ancient history: Quod quisque ob A At the time when I went holding your dress below the
tutelam sui fecerit, jure suo ficisse existimetur.9 To the Classicists in penal down from the house of neck and tried to push you
law, lawful defense is grounded on the impossibility on the part of the State Crispina Barabad, when I down, what did you do?
to avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully reached near the banana hill, A I held a part of his body in
attacked, and therefore it is inconceivable for the State to require that the my husband held me. order that I would not fall to
innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression without resistance; while to Q What happened when your the ground.
the Positivists, lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act of social husband, Francisco Caballero, Q And then what happened?
justice done to repel the attack of an aggressor.10 held you? A Because I struggled hard in
Our law on self-defense is found in Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code which A He asked me from where did order that I would not fall to
provides: I prostitute myself. the ground I held his belt and
ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do Q What did you answer? that was the time I got hold of
not incur any criminal liability: A I answered that I did not go a weapon along his belt line.
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, (on) prostituting. I told him that Q After that what happened?
provided that the following circumstances concur: I was only forced to accompany A He shoved my hands upward
First. Unlawful aggression; with the carolling in order to and pushed me to the ground
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means earn money for our child. and that was the time my
employed to prevent or repel it; Q What part of your body did hands were released. He was
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of your husband, Francisco choking me.
the person defending himself. Caballero, hold you? Q When you said your hands
xxx xxx xxx A He held me at the collar of were released, was that before
As part of this law is the settled jurisprudence that he who seeks my dress. (Witness holding the or after you were choked by
justification for his act must prove by clear and convincing evidence the right portion of the collar of Francisco Caballero?
presence of the aforecited circumstances, the rationale being that having her dress.) A At that time when I was
admitted the wounding or killing of his adversary which is a felony, he is to Q After you answered about to fall to the ground that
be held criminally liable for the crime unless he establishes to the Francisco, what did he do? was the time I released my
satisfaction of the court the fact of legitimate self-defense. 11 A He said "Where have you hands.
In this case of Cunigunda Caballero, the trial court did not find her evidence been prostituting? You are a Q When you were almost fallen
clear and convincing, and gave these reasons for its conclusion: a) son of a bitch." Then I told him to the ground, where were the
appellant's testimony is inherently improbable as brought out by her "What is your business. hands of Francisco Caballero?
demonstration of the incident in question during the trial of the case; b) Anyway you have already left A On my hair.
 Q You mean to say the two Q You want to make us and his right hand held the
hands of Francisco Caballero? understand that your back was right shoulder of the
A One of his hands was holding touching the ground when you Interpreter and pulled the
my hair. The other hand made the thrust to your Interpreter to and fro. The
pushed me. husband? Interpreter represented as the
COURT: A Yes, sir. accused and the accused as the
Q What hand was holding your COURT: deceased.)
hair? Q Where were you kneeled by Q Where were your two
A His right hand was holding your, husband? hands?
my hair while his left hand A On my right thigh. (ibid; A My two hands held his waist
pushed me. emphasis supplied) line. (tsn. 66, witness
ATTORNEY GARCIA: Thus, with her husband kneeling over her as she lay on her back on the Cunigunda Caballero; emphasis
Q When you were fallen to the ground and his hand choking her neck, appellant, as she said, had no other supplied)
ground what happened? recourse but to pull out the knife inserted at the left side of her husband's In that demonstration, accused represented the victim while she in turn
A While I lay prostrate on the belt and plunge it at his body hitting the left back portion just below the was impersonated by the court interpreter, and so it was difficult if not
ground and believing that I waist, described by the attending physician, Dr. Cesar Samson, as the left impossible for the two to give an accurate reenactment considering that
have no other recourse, while lumbar region. The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity from where the the accused assumed a role not hers during the actual incident and the
his left hand was holding my knife was drawn is a strong indication of the truth of appellant's testimony, court interpreter played a part which was not truly his. At any rate, the
neck, I was able to take hold of for as she lay on the ground with her husband bent over her it was quite accused showed how one hand of her husband held her hair while the
the weapon from his belt line natural for her right hand to get hold of the knife tucked in the left side of other pushed her down by the shoulder, and to portray how she in turn
and I thrust it to him. the man's belt and thrust it at that section of the body nearest to her hand struggled and tried to push back her husband to keep herself from falling,
Q What was this weapon which at the moment. she "pulled the interpreter (representing the accused) to and fro." The fact
you were able to get from his We do not agree with the trial judge's observation that as demonstrated by is that Francisco succeeded in forcing appellant down to the ground as
belt line? the accused it was physically impossible for her to get hold of the weapon portrayed by the latter when, following the foregoing demonstration, she
A It was a hunting knife." (tsn. because the two knees of her husband were on her right thigh "which was asked by the private prosecutor to show how she stabbed her husband
pp. 53-55, witness Cunigunda would have forced her to put her right elbow towards the ground"(see p. 9 — a matter which is discussed in pages 8 and 9 of this Decision.
Caballero) of Decision), for even if it were true that the two knees of Francisco were It is this particular location of the wound sustained by the victim which
On cross-examination, appellant was asked by the private prosecutor to on his wife's right thigh, however, there is nothing in the record to show strongly militates against the credibility of the lone prosecution witness,
show her position when she stabbed her husband and she did, and that the right arm of the accused was held, pinned down or rendered Ignacio Barabad. This witness declared that on that night when husband
although the stenographic notes on that demonstration are very sketchy immobile, or that she pressed her elbow to the ground, as conjectured by and wife met on the road, Cunigunda called Francisco and when the latter
which We quote: the trial judge, in such a manner that she could not reach for the knife. On was near, she immediately stabbed him. If that were true, that is, husband
Q Please demonstrate to this the contrary, as indicated earlier, accused testified and so demonstrated and wife were standing face to face at a distance of one-half meter when
Court when you made the that she was lying flat on her back, her husband kneeling over her and her the stabbing occurred (tsn. p. 11, witness Ignacio Barabad), it would have
thrust to your husband? right arm free to pull out the knife and strike with it. been more natural and probable for the weapon to have been directed
A When I took hold of the The trial judge also referred the a demonstration made by appellant of that towards the front part of the body of the victim such as his abdomen or
hunting knife I made the thrust portion of her testimony when she was held by the hair and pushed down chest, rather than at his back, left side, just above the left thigh.
in this manner. (Witness held to the ground, and His Honor commented that "(S)he could not be falling to In cases such as the one now before Us where there are directly conflicting
the ruler with her right hand the ground, as shown to the Court by her, considering the fact that the versions of the incident object of the accusation, the Court in its search for
kneeled on the floor)" (tsn. p. pushing was to and fro as shown in her demonstration." (p. 8, Decision) The the truth perforce has to look for some facts or circumstances which can be
67, ibid) trial judge, however, failed to consider that it is humanly impossible to have used as valuable aids in evaluating the probability or improbability of a
still We can get a clear picture of what appellant must have done, from the an exact and accurate reproduction or reenactment of an occurrence testimony, for after all the element of probability is always involved in
questions and answers immediately following the above-quoted portion of especially if it involves the participation of persons other than the very weighing testimonial evidence13, so much so that when a court as a judicial
the transcript, viz: protagonists of the incident being re-enacted. In this particular instance fact-finder pronounces judgment that a set of facts constitute the true
Q You want to make us appellant was asked by the private prosecutor to show how she was pushed happening it does so not of its own personal knowledge but as the result of
understand that when you down by her husband, and her demonstration is described in the an evaluating process of the probability or improbability of a fact sought to
thrust the weapon to the body stenographic transcript as follows: be proved.
of your husband you were Q Please demonstrate to this Thus, in People vs. Aquino, L-32390, December 28, 1973, a decision of the
lying down flat to the ground? Court the position of your First Division of this Court penned by Chief Justice Querube C. Makalintal,
A I was lying flat on the ground husband and you while your the plea of self-defense of the accused-appellant was sustained on the basis
face upward. I was a little bit husband held your hair. of certain "physical and objective circumstances" which proved to be of
inclined because tried to A He did this way. (Witness "decisive importance" in ascertaining the veracity of the plea of self-
struggle trying to get away held the hair of the Court defense, to wit: the location of the wound on the right side of the throat
from the hold of my husband. Interpreter with his left hand and right arm of the deceased, the direction of the trajectories of the
bullets fired by the accused, the discovery of bloodstains at the driver's the subject-matter of appellant's report to the police concerning the appellant's testimony concerning the dress marked Exhibit 1 for the
seat, the finding of the dagger and scabbard of the deceased, and so on. 14 incident except for the following: defense. (tsn. p. 70 witness J. de Leon) If there was no clear and positive
In the case of appellant Cunigunda Caballero, We find the location of the COURT: statement in appellant's testimony either on direct or cross examination
fatal wound as a valuable circumstance which confirms the plea of self- Q Did you show that dress to that she informed the police that she was choked by her husband, it was
defense. the police authorities the because, as We noted, no question was propounded to her on that point.
Another, is the lack of motive of appellant in attacking and killing her following day? While We are on this subject of appellant's surrender, mention is to be
husband on that particular night of January 2. Although it is the general rule A I was not able to wear that, made of the knife marked as Exhibit C for the prosecution. In her testimony,
that the presence of motive in the killing of a person is not indispensable to Your Honor, because it was appellant stated that Exhibit C was not the knife actually used by her in
a conviction especially where the identity of the assailant is duly established torn out. stabbing her husband because the true weapon was her husband's Moro
by other competent evidence or is not disputed, as in this case, Q You did not bring that to the hunting knife with a blade of around six inches which she threw away
nonetheless, the absence of such motive is important in ascertaining the police authorities? immediately after the incident; that when she was asked by Pat. Mariveles
truth as between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killings. 15 A I showed it to the police to look for the weapon and she could not find it, she was advised by
We disagree with the statement of the court a quo that appellant's motive authorities, and they told me policeman Cabral who helped her in the search to get any knife and
for killing her husband was his abandonment of her and his failure to to keep it, not to touch it. (Tsn. surrender it to the desk officer and so she took the knife Exhibit C and
support her and her child. While appellant admitted in the course of her p. 65, ibid) presented it to Pat. Mariveles. (tsn. appellant pp. 56-57, 60) This testimony
testimony that her marriage was not a happy one, that she and her We do not see, therefore, the alleged contradiction in appellant's testimony of appellant was taken against her by the court a quo which held that her
husband separated in the month of October, 1957, and since then she and which was singled out by His Honor as one of his reasons for discrediting declaration could not have been true. We find however no strong reason
her child lived with her parents who supported them, nevertheless she her plea of self-defense. for disbelieving the accused on this point. Appellant does not deny that she
declared that notwithstanding their separation she still loved her husband That appellant made it clear to the police that she stabbed her husband turned over Exhibit C to Pat. Mariveles as the knife with which she stabbed
(tsn. p. 59, cross-examination of appellant). As a matter of fact, appellant because he attacked her is confirmed by no less than the prosecution her husband but she claims that she did so upon advise of another
had been living with her parents for several months prior to the incident in witness, Patrolman Restituto Mariveles, who was on duty at the desk when policeman, Pat. Cabral, and it is quite significant that the latter was not
question and appeared resigned to her fate. Furthermore, there is no appellant arrived at the police headquarters. This witness on cross- called upon by the prosecution to refute such declaration. There is sincerity
record of any event which occurred immediately prior to January 2 which examination declared: in appellant's attempt to rectify a misstatement made by her to Pat.
could have aroused her feelings to such a degree as to drive her to plan and Q And she also told you that on Mariveles and We are inclined to believe and in fact We do believe that the
carry out the killing of her husband. that night previous to the fatal weapon must have had indeed a blade of around six inches as stated
On the other hand, it was Francisco Caballero who had a reason for incident her husband Francisco by appellant for it to penetrate through the left lumbar region to the
attacking his wife, Cunigunda. Meeting his wife unexpectedly at past Caballero beat her up, is that victim's large intestine and cause the discharge of fecal matter (tsn. Dr. C.
midnight on the road, Francisco reacted angrily, and suspecting that she right? Samson, p. 6)
was out for some bad purpose he held her by the collar of her dress and A She told me that she was met All the elements of self-defense are indeed present in the instant case.
said: "Where have you been prostituting? You are a son of a bitch." This on the way by her husband The element of unlawful aggression has been clearly established as pointed
was followed by a slapping on the face until Cunigunda's nose bled, pulling immediately after carolling and out above.
of her hair, pushing her down to the ground, and strangling her — all of she was manhandled by her The second element, that is, reasonable necessity for the means employed
which constituted the unlawful aggression against which appellant had to husband and when she was is likewise present. Here we have a woman who being strangled and choked
defend herself. struggling to get loose from her by a furious aggressor and rendered almost unconscious by the strong
Next to appellant's lack of motive for killing her husband, is her conduct husband she happened to take pressure on her throat had no other recourse but to get hold of any
shortly after the occurrence. As soon as the sun was up that morning of hold of a knife that was placed weapon within her reach to save herself from impending death. Early
January 3 (the stabbing occurred past midnight of January 2), Cunigunda under the belt of her husband jurisprudence of this Court has followed the principle that the reasonable
went to the city and presented herself at the police headquarters where and because she was already necessity of the means employed in self-defense does not depend upon the
she reported that she stabbed her husband and surrendered the blood- half conscious she did not harm done but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. (U.S. vs.
stained dress she wore that night. On this point, the trial judge stated that know that she was able to Paras, 1907, 9 Phil. 367, citing Decision of Dec. 22, 1887) And so the fact
appellant made contradictory statements in her testimony concerning the thrust said knife to the that there was no visible injury caused on the body of the appellant which
report made by her to the police authorities, for while at the start she stomach of her husband. (tsn. necessitated medical attention, a circumstance noted by the trial court, is
declared that she did not report the "choking by her husband", she later p. 23, witness R. Mariveles) no ground for discrediting self-defense; what is vital is that there was
changed her testimony and stated that she did relate that fact. (p. 10, It is indeed regrettable that the statements made by appellant to the police imminent peril to appellant's life caused by the unlawful aggression of her
Decision) upon her surrender were not taken down in writing to serve as a faithful husband. The knife tucked in her husband's belt afforded appellant the only
We have gone over the stenographic transcript of the testimony of and reliable account of her report, nevertheless, We are satisfied by the reasonable means with which she could free and save herself from being
appellant on direct examination and nowhere is there a positive and direct fact, which is not disputed, that of her own accord appellant went to the strangled and choked to death. What this Court expressed in the case of
statement of hers that she did not report that she was choked by her police authorities early in the morning of January 3, informed Policeman People vs. Lara, 1925, 48 Phil. 153, 160, is very true and applicable to the
husband. What the trial judge asked of appellant was whether or not she Mariveles that she stabbed her husband because he manhandled her which situation now before Us, and We quote:
told the police about the fist mark on her face and her answer was "No, sir, rendered her "half-conscious", and brought and showed the dress she wore It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this
I forgot." (tsn. p. 55, supra) And on appellant's cross-examination, there during the incident which was torn by the collar and with blood stains due kind human nature does not act upon processes of
was no question propounded and therefore there was no answer given on to the bleeding of her nose. Another policeman, Joventino de Leon, who at formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-
the time was property custodian of the Ormoc City police, corroborated preservation; and when it is apparent, as in this case,
 that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, regard to aliens, those who are admittedly so; (2) respondent is a citizen of The second proposition appears to be justified by the documents attached
it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and to the Philippines and his claim is supported by evidence that, if believed, is to the record, especially the letter of the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs
hold the actor irresponsible in law for the sufficient to entitle him to a declaration of his citizenship; and (3) his under the Japanese Military Occupation, dated August 17, 1944 (Annex I),
consequences. 16 Filipino citizenship has already been declared by the Secretary of labor, in the letter of the Secretary of Labor dated October 31, 1945, finding the
Equally relevant is the time-honored principle: Necessitas Non habet legem. presentation of the President of the Philippines, and the same is binding on petitioner a natural son of a Filipino woman and, therefore, a Filipino
Necessity knows no law. the other executive branches of the government, the Deportation Board citizen, and therefore exempt from the provisions of the Alien Registration
The third element of self-defense is lack of sufficient provocation on the part including. The motion to quash was denied by the Deportation Board on Act (Annexes K, J and L), and the decision of the Court of First Instance of
of the person defending himself. Provocation is sufficient when it is July 7, 1952, on the ground that the mere plea of citizenship does not divest Manila in Case No. 565, entitled Federico M. Chua Hiong, petitioner, to the
proportionate to the aggression, that is, adequate enough to impel one to the Deportation Board of its power over the deportation proceedings; that effect that petitioner is the illegitimate son of a Filipino woman by the
attack the person claiming self- the Deportation Board has the judicial power to pass upon the sufficiency of name of Tita Umandap and is, therefore, a Filipino citizen (Annex 2),
defense. 17 Undoubtedly appellant herein did not give sufficient provocation the evidence that the respondent may submit to support his claim of although this decision was afterwards set aside in view of the dismissal of
to warrant the aggression or attack on her person by her husband, citizenship; that the passport and other documents submitted by the the appeal in the Supreme Court. But the above documents are
Francisco. While it was understandable for Francisco to be angry at his wife respondent to prove his claim of citizenship are inconclusive; that the contradicted by the finding of a member of the Board of special
for finding her on the road in the middle of the night, however, he was not Deportation Board is not barred from determining the claim of Investigation of the Bureau of Immigration (Annex 4, respondent), who,
justified in inflicting bodily punishment with an intent to kill by choking his respondent's citizenship notwithstanding previous findings of executive after an analysis of the evidence, concludes that the testimony of Tita
wife's throat. All that appellant did was to provoke an imaginary officials of the Government; that an analysis of the evidence of the Umandap, alleged mother of petitioner, has certain discrepancies which
commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband, which is not a sufficient respondent made by the Department of Justice shows ample reasons for render it of doubtful veracity. The Secretary of Justice, in his
provocation under the law of self-defense. Upon being confronted by her justifying the Chief Executive in redetermining respondent's citizenship; and communication of May 17, 1952, addressed to the Commissioner of
husband for being out late at night, accused gave a valid excuse that she that only may the Board be prohibited from continuing the proceedings if it Immigration, has also found that petitioner's claim to citizenship is not
went carolling with some friends to earn some money for their child. is convinced that the evidence submitted by the respondent shows that he satisfactorily proved, so he ordered that he be required to register in
January 2 was indeed within the Christmas season during which by tradition is a Filipino citizen. accordance with the provisions of the Alien Registration Act. We might add
people carol from house to house and receive monetary gifts in a Christian These proceedings were instituted in this Court on September 3, 1952, and that the petitioner herein had obtained original entry into the Philippines as
spirit of goodwill. The deceased therefore should have given some it is sought herein that a writ of habeas corpus issue in favor of the the son of a Chinese father and a Chinese mother, which fact entirely
consideration to his wife's excuse before jumping to conclusions and taking petitioner against the Deportation Board on the ground that his arrest was contradicts his claim of Filipino parentage on his mother's side, although
the extreme measure of attempting to kill his wife. made without jurisdiction, as the claim submitted by him of his Filipino this fact may perhaps be explained by the desire of his father to hide the
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, We find that accused-appellant citizenship is supported by evidence; that the Board he prohibited from illegitimate filiation of his son, a natural tendency of man. We have
acted in the legitimate defense of her person, and We accordingly set aside continuing the deportation proceedings against him; and that a writ of therefore a case where the evidence is neither decisively conclusive in favor
the judgment of conviction and ACQUIT her with costs de oficio. preliminary injunction issue to restrain the Deportation Board from hearing of the petitioner's Filipino citizenship, nor decisively conclusive against said
So Ordered. the case until after his petition is heard by this Court. On September 15, claim.
Makalintal, C.J, Teehankee, Makasiar and Esguerra, JJ., concur. 1952, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Deportation Board, filed a The third proposition contained in petitioner's claim and as set forth above,
Castro, J, is on leave. return, claiming, among other things, that the Deportation Board has in the seems to have been already passed upon by the Supreme Court of the
G.R. No. L-6038             March 19, 1955 first instance jurisdiction to pass on the question of petitioner's claim of United States in the case of Ng Fung Mo. vs. White, 66 L. ed. 938, wherein it
FEDERICO M. CHUA HIONG, petitioner, Filipino citizenship; that the papers submitted to the Board by petitioner to was stated:
vs. support his claim of Filipino citizenship are inconclusive; and that it may . . . To deport one who so claims to be a citizen obviously
THE DEPORTATION BOARD, respondent. review a previous determination by the Secretary of Labor on petitioner's deprives him of liberty as was pointed out in Chin Yow vs. United
Leon Ma. Guerrero for petitioner. Filipino citizenship. The return alleges the same reasons that the Board had States, 208 U. S. 8, 13, 52 L. ed. 369, 370, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 201. It
Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Felix V. Makasiar set forth in denying petitioner's motion to quash the proceedings. On may result also in loss of both property and life; or of all that
for respondent. October 15, 1952, petitioner filed a reply to the return, attaching other makes life worth living. Against the danger of such deprivation
LABRADOR, J.: documents relative to the petition. without the sanction afforded by judicial proceedings, the 5th
On the February 26, 1952 proceedings were instituted before the The legal foundation of the petitioners claim is contained in three Amendment affords protection in its guaranty of due process of
Deportation Board against the petitioner, Federico M. Chua Hiong, who is propositions, namely, (a) that only an alien is subject to deportation or law. The difference in security of judicial over administrative
alleged to have secured the cancellation of his alien certificate of repatriation, and that when a resident denies that he is an alien and claims action has been adverted to by this court. . . .
registration with the Bureau of Immigration on October 31, 1945, through to be a citizen of the Philippines, he challenges or puts in issue a It follows that Gin Gang Get and San Mo are entitled to a judicial
fraud and misrepresentation (in claiming to be an illegitimate child of a jurisdictional fact, alienage; (b) that the evidence which he has submitted to determination of their claims that they are citizens of the United
Filipino mother named Tita Umandap when as a matter of fact he is the the Deportation Board as to his Filipino citizenship is substantial, for as a States; . . .
legitimate child of a Chinese woman by the name of Sy Mua) and to have matter of fact various officials of the executive department have recognized The Solicitor General, however, contests said ruling, citing the case of U. S.
maliciously and illegally exercised privileges and rights belonging to citizens such citizenship and had made a finding that he is not subject to the vs. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 168-189, 48 L. ed, 917, 920-921, which holds
of the Philippines, such as the right of suffrage, the acquisition of real estate provisions of the Alien Registration Act; and (c) that as his liberty as a that the regular order of deportation proceedings may not be interrupted
and lumber concessions, knowing that he is a Chinese national. Upon the citizen is involved, the constitutional guarantee of due process of law summarily as a matter of right.
institution of the proceedings, a warrant for his arrest was issued on demands that his alleged citizenship should first be determined in judicial In order to act at all the executive officer must decide upon the
February 27, 1952. He filed a bond for his release and thereafter petition proceedings. The first proposition above set forth is admitted in the return. question of citizenship. If this jurisdiction is subject to being
said Deportation Board for the dismissal of the proceedings against him on It is well settled that proceedings for deportation or repatriation can be upset, still it is necessary that he should proceed if he decides
the following grounds: (1) the jurisdiction to deport aliens exists only with instituted only against aliens. (2 Am. Jur. 524.) that it exists. . . .
 We perfectly appreciate, while we neither countenance or Fung Ho vs. White, supra.) The case of U.S. vs. Sing Tuck, supra, must be of Prision Correcional, as minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
discountenance that argument drawn from the alleged want of considered as having been modified by the case of Ng Fung Ho vs. White, of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the
jurisdiction. But while the consequence of that argument, if which is of a later date. It is also more applicable to the case at bar where law.
sound, is that both executive officers and Secretary of the petitioner is not seeking admission, but is already in the Philippines and Appreciating in favor of the accused Carmelo Berdin, the privileged
Commerce and Labor are acting without authority, it is one of is being expelled. If the citizen's right to his peace is to be protected, it must mitigating circumstance of minority, the said accused being only 17 years of
the necessities of the administration of justice that even be protected preferably through the medium of the courts, because these age, the accused Carmelo Berdin should be, as he is, sentenced to the
fundamental questions should be determined in the ordinary are independent of the other branches of the government and only in their penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correcional, with the
way. If the allegations of the petition for habeas corpus setting proceedings can we find guarantees of impartiality and correctness, within accessory penalties of the law.
up want of jurisdiction, whether of an executive officer or of an human limitations, in the ascertainment of the jurisdictional fact in issue, The defendants shall jointly and solidarily indemnify the heirs of the
ordinary court, are true, the petitioner theoretically is entitled to the respondent's claim of citizenship. And if the right is precious and deceased Samuel Augusto for actual and compensatory damages in the
his liberty at once. Yet a summary interruption of the regular valuable at all, it must be also protected on time, to prevent undue sum of P15,000.00 and for moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00,
order of proceedings, by means of the writ, is not always a harassment at the hands of ill-meaning or misinformed administrative without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
matter of right. officials. Of what use is this much boasted right to peace and liberty if it can The instrument of the crime, the knife, Exhibit "B", is confiscated in favor of
And he adds that only in case it is convinced that a respondent is a Filipino be availed of only after the Deportation Board has unjustly trampled upon the government.
citizen will it refrain from further proceedings in any case. it, besmirching the citizen's name before the bar of public opinion? Proportionate costs."
There is no question that as the power to deport is limited to aliens only, However, it is neither expedient nor wise that the right to a judicial SO ORDERED."[1]
the alienage of the respondent in deportation proceedings is a basic and determination should be allowed in all cases; it should be granted only in According to the prosecution, the antecedent facts are as follows:
fundamental fact upon which the jurisdiction of the Deportation Board cases when the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evidence In the evening of May 25, 1980, a benefit dance was held
depends. If the alienage of the respondent is not denied, the Board's supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable at sitio Naga, Babag II, Lapu-lapu City for the last canvassing of votes for the
jurisdiction and its proceedings are unassailable; if the respondent is grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. In other words, the remedy candidates for princesses who would reign at the sitio fiesta.  As one of the
admittedly a citizen, or conclusively shown to be such, the Board lacks should be allowed only in the sound discretion of a competent court in a candidates was the daughter of Samuel Augusto, he and the members of
jurisdiction and its proceedings are null and void ab initio and may be proper proceeding. his family attended the affair.
summarily enjoined in the courts. Naturally the Board must have the In the case at bar, we find that the evidence of which petitioner and the Also present were members of the Kwaknit gang, a group which was noted
power, in the first instance, to determine the respondent's nationality. And State may avail is of such substantial nature as to afford belief that only an for their bird-like way of dancing and their propensity for drunkenness and
the respondent must present evidence of his claim of citizenship before the impartial judicial investigation can evaluate it with fairness to the petitioner provoking trouble.  Its president, called the "alas" king, was Luis Toring.  The
Board and may not reserve it before the courts alone in a subsequent and with justice to all concerned. Besides, the Executive department has group was then outside the dancing area which was ringed by benches.
action of habeas corpus. (Carmona vs. Aldanese, 54 Phil., 896.) It must seen it proper that the issue of petitioner's citizenship be determined in a At around 10:45 p.m., Samuel's daughter was proclaimed the winner in the
quash the proceedings if it is satisfied that respondent is a citizen, and judicial proceeding, a criminal action for violation of the Alien Registration contest.  Beer and softdrinks having been served the parents of the
continue it if it finds that he is not, even if the respondent claims citizenship Act having been filed against the petitioner in the Court of First Instance of candidates by the officers of the Naga Chapel Association which took
and denies alienage. Its jurisdiction is not divested by the mere claim of Manila, No. 21740, People of the Philippines vs. Federico M. Chua Hiong. charge of the affair, Samuel was tipsy when, after his daughter's
citizenship. (Miranda, et al., vs. Deportation Board, 94, Phil., 531.) (See Annex to Manifestation of counsel for petitioner of March 6, 1953.) proclamation, he stepped out of the dancing area to answer the call of
There is also no question that a respondent who claims to be a citizen and Wherefore, let the preliminary injunction issued in this case continue nature.
not therefore subject to deportation has the right to have his citizenship subject to the results of the aforesaid criminal action against the petitioner. At that moment, barangay tanod Felix Berdin saw
reviewed by the courts, after the deportation proceedings. When the Without costs. Luis Toring, Carmelo Berdin and Diosdado Berdon proceed to a dark area
evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the 269 Phil. 41 while whispering to each other.  Diosdado Berdon handed a knife to
right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should Luis Toring,[2] who then approached Samuel from behind, held Samuel's left
promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. A citizen is entitled to live in hand with his left hand, and with his right hand, stabbed with the knife the
peace, without molestation from any official or authority, and if he is FERNAN, C.J.: right side of Samuel's abdomen.[3] Upon seeing Felix running towards them,
disturbed by a deportation proceedings, he has the unquestionable right to The appellants herein seek the reversal of the October 28, 1980 decision of Luis Toring pulled out the knife and, together
resort to the courts for his protection, either by a writ of habeas corpus or the Circuit Criminal Court in Cebu City in Criminal Case No. CCC-XIV-2170 with Carmelo Berdin and Diosdado Berdon, ran towards the dark.  Felix
of prohibition, on the legal ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction. If he is a the dispositive portion of which reads: tried to chase the three but he was not able to catch them.  He returned to
citizen and evidence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense nor justice in "WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Luis B. Toring guilty beyond where Samuel had slumped and helped others in taking Samuel to the
allowing the deportation proceedings to continue, granting him the remedy reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER by direct participation as hospital.
only after the Board has finished its investigation of his undesirability. The principal; Diosdado Berdon as accomplice thereto; and Carmelo Berdin as According to Maria Catalina Sorono, who was six (6) meters away from
legal basis of the prohibition is the absence of the jurisdictional fact, accessory after the fact. Samuel and Luis when the assault
alienage. Appreciating in favor of the accused Luis B. Toring the mitigating occurred, Diosdado Berdon and Carmelo Berdin were poised to deliver fist
The difficulty arises when the evidence is not conclusive on either side, as in circumstance of voluntary surrender, the said circumstance having been blows on Samuel just before Luis Toring stabbed him.  Diosdado gave the
the case at bar. Should the deportation proceedings be allowed to continue offset by the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, the accused knife to Luis Toring.[4]
till the end, or should the question of alienage or citizenship of respondent Luis Toring should be, as he is, hereby sentenced to the penalty of As soon as she saw the stabbing of Samuel, Maria Catalina shouted for
be allowed to be decided first in a judicial proceeding, suspending the RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory penalties of law. help.  The three assailants ran towards the direction of the
administrative proceedings in the meantime that the alienage or citizenship There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances on the part of fields.  Jacinto Lobas and Mario Andog responded to her shouts and
is being finally determined in the courts? The highest judicial authority in the accused Diosdado Berdon, the said accused should be as he is hereby brought Samuel to the Opon Emergency Hospital where he died on
the United States has answered the second question in the affirmative. (Ng sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of from SIX (6) YEARS arrival.  According to the necropsy report,[5] Samuel, who was thirty years
old, died due to massive hemorrhage secondary to the stab wound on the that Carmelo Berdin used to see him hide his weapons upstairs accused have individual or separate liabilities for the killing of
abdomen.  Said wound is described in the report as follows: because Berdin was a frequent visitor of his.[15] Samuel:  Toring, as a principal, Diosdado Berdon as an accomplice by his act
"Stab wound, with herniation of omental tissues; elliptical, 3.5 cms. long, For his part, Carmelo, a 5-feet tall, asthmatic 17-year-old whom the court of giving Toring the knife, and Carmelo Berdin as an accessory for
running vertically downward, edges clean-cut, superior extremity rounded, described as "lilliputian," admitted that he witnessed the stabbing incident concealing the weapon.  It considered treachery as the qualifying
inferior extremity sharp, located at the abdominal region, right anterior but he ran away with his group immediately after because he was afraid he circumstance to the killing, found no proof as to the allegation of evident
aspect, 7.5 cms. to the right of anterior median line and might be shot by Samuel.  He was with Toring when the latter hid the still premeditation but appreciated nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.  It
107.0 cms. above right heel, directed backward, upward and medially, bloodied knife under a trunk in Toring's house.  He was familiar with the meted the accused the penalties mentioned above.
involving skin and the underlying soft tissues, penetrating right peritoneal hiding place of the knife because Toring showed it to him and there were All three accused appealed.
cavity, incising inferior vena cava, attaining an approximate depth of times when he would get the knife there Toring seeks his exoneration by contending that his assault on Samuel was
15.0 cms." upon Toring's request.  Carmelo corroborated Toring's testimony that on justified because he acted in defense of his first cousin, Joel Escobia.  Article
The death weapon, a kitchen knife made of stainless steel and with a red- that fateful night, Toring carried the knife tucked at the back of his 11 (3) of the Revised Penal Code provides that no criminal liability is
colored handle, was recovered from the house of Luis Toring.  According to waistline.[16] incurred by anyone "who acts in defense of x x x his relatives x x x by
Patrolman Pantaleon P. Amodia, the police found out during the In court, Toring testified that he never saw Diosdado at the dance. consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
[17]
investigation that Luis Toring had left the weapon with  However, in his sworn statement dated May 28, 1980 and marked as second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are
"Camilo" Berdin.  When the police confronted Berdin, the latter led them to Exhibit D, Toring stated that he took the knife from Diosdado to stab present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the
the house of Toring which Berdin entered.  When he emerged from the Samuel.  Confronted with said statement, Diosdado said that when he person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein." The
house, Berdin handed the weapon to the police.[6] asked Toring why he implicated him, Toring allegedly replied that he first and second requisites referred to are enumerated in paragraph (1) in
An information for murder was filed against Toring.  Subsequently, "included" Diosdado because of the case the barangay brigade had filed the same article on self-defense as:  (a) unlawful aggression, and (b) lack of
however, the information was amended to against Toring.[18] sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
include Diosdado Berdon and Carmelo Berdin as defendants.  The three According to Diosdado, he did not attend the May 25 dance because of the Joel Escobia, whose chin was hit with the butt of Samuel's shotgun, is the
were charged therein with conspiracy in killing Samuel Augusto in a trouble which erupted during the dance the night before.  He did not have first cousin of Toring their fathers being brothers[23] although no explanation
treacherous manner.  Berdon, it was alleged, "conveniently supplied the anything to do with the stabbing of Samuel.  He admitted, however, that a appears on record why they have different surnames.  At any rate, this
death weapon" which Toring used in stabbing Samuel week after the incident, his family went to barrio Andaliw, Ronda, Cebu, for allegation on relationship was not rebutted by the prosecution.
while Berdin allegedly concealed the weapon to prevent its discovery by the their yearly visit to his father-in-law.  He stayed there for fifteen days and The appreciation of the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative,
police.[7] The crime was purportedly committed with the attendance of the would have stayed longer had not his mother informed him of the however, hinges in this case on the presence of unlawful aggression on the
generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and nighttime. subpoena addressed to him.[19] part of the victim.  Corrollarily, the claim of Toring that Samuel was, at the
All three accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.  At the trial, On October 28, 1980, a day after the last date of hearing, the lower time of the assault, carrying a shotgun to intimidate Toring's group must be
Luis Toring, alias "Lowe," testified that he was not the president of court[20] rendered a decision descrediting Toring's claim that the killing of proven.
the Kwaknit gang.  He went to the benefit dance in the company Samuel was justified because it was done in defense of a stranger pursuant Understandably, no prosecution witness attested that they saw Samuel
of Venir Ybanez, Joel Escobia, Ely Amion, Abel Pongase, to Article 11 (3) of the Revised Penal Code.  The lower court found with a firearm.  The prosecution even recalled to the witness stand
Abe Berdon, Genio Berdin and Alex Augusto.  Toring and his group were that Toring was the "aggressor acting in retaliation or revenge by reason of Samuel's widow who asserted that her husband did not own any firearm.
[24]
standing outside the dancing area when, at around eleven o'clock in the a running feud or long-standing grudge" between the Kwaknit gang and the  Going along with the prosecution's evidence, the lower court arrived at
evening, Samuel, a known tough guy ("maldito"), approached them and group of Samuel, who, being the son of the barangay captain, was a "power the rather gratuitous conjecture that Samuel could not have had a shotgun
held Venir Ybanez by his collar.  Then Samuel thrust the butt of his shotgun to be reckoned with." It mentioned the fact that a year before the incident with him because no one without a permit would carry a firearm without
on the chin of Joel Escobia,[8] proceeded to another group who were in question, Toring was shot by Edgar Augusto (Samuel's brother) and risking arrest by the police or the barangay tanod.  At the same time,
also gangmates of Toring, and again, with the barrel of his shotgun, hit hence, in his desire to avenge himself, Toring "needed but a little excuse to however, the lower court described Samuel as the son of
Eli Amion's chest several times.[9] do away with the object of his hatred."[21] the barangay captain who "had the run of the place and had his compelling
Reacting to what he saw, Toring got his kitchen knife which was tucked in The lower court could not believe that Samuel brought along his shotgun to presence felt by all and sundry."[25]
his waist, approached Samuel from the latter's right side and stabbed him the dance because he was "not reputed to be a public official or functionary While matters dealing with the credibility of witnesses and appreciation of
once as he did not intend to kill Samuel.  Toring then ran towards the dark entitled to possess a firearm." Otherwise, the police and evidence are primarily the lower court's province, this Court has the power
portion of the area and went home.  There, he left the knife and proceeded the barangay tanod would have arrested him.  The court surmised that if to determine whether in the performance of its functions, the lower court
to the hut by the fishpond of one Roman.[10] Samuel really carried a shotgun, he certainly must have had a permit or overlooked certain matters which may have a substantial effect in the
Toring was sleeping in the hut with his older brother, Arsenio, when, at license to possess the same. resolution of a case.[26] Defense witness Joel Escobia was, besides Toring,
around 4:00 o'clock in the morning of May 26, 1980, Edgar Augusto, the It noted that while Toring testified that Samuel was aiming his shotgun at the only witness whose sworn statement was taken by the police on May
younger brother of Samuel, shot them.  Arsenio was hit on the left leg and the chest of Ely Amyon (Amion), prosecution witness Joel Escobia claimed 26, 1980, the day after the fatal assault on Samuel.
he stayed two months in the hospital for the treatment of his wound.[11] that he was at the receiving end of Samuel's thrusts with the butt of his In his sworn statement,[27] Escobia attested that as he was about to dance
At 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1980, Toring surrendered to two shotgun.  To the court, such discrepancy is fatal to the defense because in with a girl, Samuel stopped him, pointed his shotgun at him, took a bullet
Philippine Constabulary soldiers.[12] They brought him to the police of Lapu- appreciating the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger, the court from his jacket pocket, showed it to Escobia and asked him, "Do you like
lapu City on May 28, 1980.[13] When the police asked him about the knife he must know "with definiteness the identity of the stranger defended by the this, Dong?" to which Escobia replied, "No, Noy, I do not like that." Samuel
used in stabbing Samuel, Toring told them to go to Carmelo Berdin because accused."[22] then placed the bullet in the shotgun and was thus pointing it
he was the only person who knew where Toring hid it.[14] Asserting that he The lower court, however, ruled out the existence of conspiracy among the at Escobia when Toring came from behind Samuel and stabbed the
was the one who returned the knife to his own house, Toring testified three accused on the ground that there was no proof on what they were latter.  Even on cross-examination at the trial, Escobia did not depart from
whispering about when Felix saw them.  Accordingly, it held that the
his statement.  In fact he added that Samuel pointed the shotgun at his chin been proven beyond reasonable doubt.  Add to this is the fact Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 19, dated 21 April 1997, finding her guilty of
and told him to eat the bullet.[28] that Toring himself in his sworn statement before the police pointed to him seven (7) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 (B.P. 22),
There is no reason to doubt Joel Escobia's assertion of Samuel's unlawful as the source of the knife.[39] Verily, Toring could not have implicated him otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.
aggression inasmuch as his sworn statement[29] and testimony in court had because of the incomprehensible reason that a case had been filed This case stemmed from the filing of seven (7) Informations for violation of
not been successfully discredited by the prosecution which also failed to against Toring before the barangay brigade. B.P. 22 against Ty before the RTC of Manila. The Informations were
prove that Joel had reason to prevaricate to favor Toring. Pursuant to Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code, as an accomplice by his docketed as Criminal Cases No. 93-130459 to No. 93-130465. The
The presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and the lack previous act of supplying Toring the death accusatory portion of the Information in Criminal Case No. 93-130465 reads
of proof of provocation on the part of Toring notwithstanding, full credence weapon, Diosdado Berdon should be meted the penalty as follows:
cannot be given to Toring's claim of defense of a relative.  Toring himself of prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium which is the That on or about May 30, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
admitted in court[30] as well as in his sworn statement[31] that in 1979, he penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal maximum to death, the accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make or
was shot with a .22 caliber revolver by Edgar Augusto, Samuel's brother.  It penalty prescribed for murder by Article 248 (Article 6 [3]).  There being no draw and issue to Manila Doctors' Hospital to apply on account or for value
cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled by mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be in its to Editha L. Vecino Check No. Metrobank 487712 dated May 30, 1993
pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the medium period or reclusion temporal minimum (Article 64 [1]).  Applying payable to Manila Doctors Hospital in the amount of P30,000.00, said
immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin.  Rather, he was motivated by the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty should be taken accused well knowing that at the time of issue she did not have sufficient
revenge, resentment or evil motive[32] because of a "running feud" between from prision mayor minimum while the maximum penalty should be within funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such check in full
the Augusto and the Toring brothers.  As the defense itself claims, after the the period of reclusion temporal minimum. upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment within
incident subject of the instance case occurred, Toring's brother, Arsenio, With regards to Carmelo Berdin, his culpability as an accessory to the ninety (90) days from the date hereof, was subsequently dishonored by the
was shot on the leg by Edgar Augusto.  Indeed, vendetta appears to have murder has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.  The fact that he drawee bank for "Account Closed" and despite receipt of notice of such
driven both camps to commit unlawful acts against each other.  Hence, knew where Toring hid the knife does not imply that he concealed it to dishonor, said accused failed to pay said Manila Doctors Hospital the
under the circumstances, to justify Toring's act of assaulting prevent its discovery (Article 19 [2]).  There simply is no proof to that amount of the check or to make arrangement for full payment of the same
Samuel Augusto would give free rein to lawlessness. effect.  On the contrary, Luis Toring in his sworn statement and testimony within five (5) banking days after receiving said notice.
The lower court correctly considered the killing as murder in view of the during the trial testified that after stabbing the victim, he ran away and Contrary to law.3
presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.  The suddenness of went to his house to hide the murder weapon.  Being a close friend The other Informations are similarly worded except for the number of the
the assault rendered Samuel helpless even to use his shotgun.  We also of Toring and a frequent visitor to the latter's house, it is checks and dates of issue. The data are hereunder itemized as follows:
agree with the lower court that conspiracy and evident premeditation were not impossible for Carmelo Berdin to know where Toring hid Criminal Case No. Check No. Postdated Amount
not proven beyond reasonable doubt.  Moreover, nighttime cannot be his knives.  Significantly, Carmelo readily acceded to the request of police
considered as an aggravating circumstance.  There is no proof that it was officers to lead them to the place where Toring kept the knife.  He willingly 93-130459 487710 30 March 1993 P30,000.00
purposely sought to insure the commission of the crime or retrieved it and surrendered it to the police, a behavior we find inconsistent
prevent its discovery.[33] However, Toring should be credited with with guilt. 93-130460 487711 30 April 1993 P30,000.00
the priviIeged mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of relative WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed insofar as it
and the generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. convicts Luis Toring as principal in the murder of 93-130461 487709 01 March 1993 P30,000.00
The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code Samuel Augusto and Diosdado Berdon as an accomplice thereto.
93-130462 487707 30 December 1992 P30,000.00
being reclusion temporal maximum to death, the imposable penalty The lower court's decision is modified as follows:
is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium in view of the (a) Luis Toring shall be imposed the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years 93-130463 487706 30 November 1992 P30,000.00
presence of the mitigating circumstances of incomplete defense of relative of prision correccional maximum as minimum to twelve (12) years
and voluntary surrender (Art. 64 [5]).  Applying the Indeterminate Sentence of prision mayor maximum as maximum; 93-130464 487708 30 January 1993 P30,000.00
Law, the proper penalty to be meted (b) Diosdado Berdon shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years
on Toring is prision correccional maximum as minimum and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum as minimum to twelve (12) years 93-130465 487712 30 May 1993 P30,000.004
to prision mayor maximum as maximum penalty. and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum as maximum; The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. At her arraignment, Ty
On the culpability of Diosdado Berdon, the Court holds that his defense of (c) Carmelo Berdin is acquitted as an accessory to the murder of pleaded not guilty.5
alibi cannot be sustained in the absence of proof that it was physically Samuel Augusto, and The evidence for the prosecution shows that Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed. (d) Luis Toring and Diosdado Berdon shall jointly and severally pay the heirs was confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital (hospital) from 30 October
[34]
 His house was only a kilometer away from the place where he supplied of Samuel Augusto an indemnity of thirty thousand pesos 1990 until 4 June 1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty signed the
the knife to Toring.[35] That distance does not preclude the possibility (P30,000.00).  Costs against appellants Toring and Berdon. "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment" in the Contract of
that Diosdado aided Toring in the perpetration of the crime as it could be SO ORDERED. Admission dated 30 October 1990.6 As of 4 June 1992, the Statement of
negotiated in just a few minutes by merely walking. [36] Moreover, his alibi [G.R. NO. 149275 : September 27, 2004] Account7 shows the total liability of the mother in the amount
was uncorroborated as it was founded only on his own testimony and what VICKY C. TY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. of P657,182.40. Ty's sister, Judy Chua, was also confined at the hospital
appears as a self-exonerating affidavit.[37] DECISION from 13 May 1991 until 2 May 1992, incurring hospital bills in the amount
But what pins culpability on Diosdado were the testimonies of at least two TINGA, J.: of P418,410.55.8 The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted
prosecution witnesses who positively identified him as the one who Petitioner Vicky C. Ty ("Ty") filed the instant Petition for Review under Rule to P1,075,592.95. On 5 June 1992, Ty executed a promissory note wherein
gave Toring the knife.  Motive, therefore, has become immaterial in the 45, seeking to set aside the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals Eighth Division she assumed payment of the obligation in installments.9 To assure payment
face of such positive identification[38] and hence, even if it were true that he in CA-G.R. CR No. 20995, promulgated on 31 July 2001. of the obligation, she drew several postdated checks against Metrobank
was not a member of the Kwaknit gang, his participation in the killing has The Decision affirmed with modification the judgment of the Regional Trial payable to the hospital. The seven (7) checks, each covering the amount
of P30,000.00, were all deposited on their due dates. But they were all check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and In the instant case, the Court discerns no compelling reason to reverse the
dishonored by the drawee bank and returned unpaid to the hospital due to conditions relating to its issuance.16 factual findings arrived at by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of
insufficiency of funds, with the "Account Closed" advice. Soon thereafter, Neither was the Court of Appeals convinced that there was no valuable Appeals.
the complainant hospital sent demand letters to Ty by registered mail. As consideration for the issuance of the checks as they were issued in payment Ty does not deny having issued the seven (7) checks subject of this case.
the demand letters were not heeded, complainant filed the seven of the hospital bills of Ty's mother.17 She, however, claims that the issuance of the checks was under the impulse
(7) Informations subject of the instant case.10 In sentencing Ty to pay a fine instead of a prison term, the appellate court of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of a greater evil
For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of "an applied the case of Vaca v. Court of Appeals 18 wherein this Court declared or injury. She would also have the Court believe that there was no valuable
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury." She averred that she was forced to that in determining the penalty imposed for violation of B.P. 22, the consideration in the issuance of the checks.
issue the checks to obtain release for her mother whom the hospital philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be However, except for the defense's claim of uncontrollable fear of a greater
inhumanely and harshly treated and would not discharge unless the observed, i.e., redeeming valuable human material and preventing injury or avoidance of a greater evil or injury, all the grounds raised involve
hospital bills are paid. She alleged that her mother was deprived of room unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, with factual issues which are best determined by the trial court. And, as
facilities, such as the air-condition unit, refrigerator and television set, and due regard to the protection of the social order.19 previously intimated, the trial court had in fact discarded the theory of the
subject to inconveniences such as the cutting off of the telephone line, late Petitioner now comes to this Court basically alleging the same issues raised defense and rendered judgment accordingly.
delivery of her mother's food and refusal to change the latter's gown and before the Court of Appeals. More specifically, she ascribed errors to the Moreover, these arguments are a mere rehash of arguments unsuccessfully
bedsheets. She also bewailed the hospital's suspending medical treatment appellate court based on the following grounds: raised before the trial court and the Court of Appeals. They likewise put to
of her mother. The "debasing treatment," she pointed out, so affected her A. THERE IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER WAS issue factual questions already passed upon twice below, rather than
mother's mental, psychological and physical health that the latter FORCED TO OR COMPELLED IN THE OPENING OF THE ACCOUNT AND THE questions of law appropriate for review under a Rule 45 petition.
contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged from the hospital. ISSUANCE OF THE SUBJECT CHECKS. The only question of law raised - -whether the defense of uncontrollable
Fearing the worst for her mother, and to comply with the demands of the B. THE CHECKS WERE ISSUED UNDER THE IMPULSE OF fear is tenable to warrant her exemption from criminal liability - -has to be
hospital, Ty was compelled to sign a promissory note, open an account with AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF A GREATER INJURY OR IN AVOIDANCE OF A resolved in the negative. For this exempting circumstance to be invoked
Metrobank and issue the checks to effect her mother's immediate GREATER EVIL OR INJURY. successfully, the following requisites must concur: (1) existence of an
discharge.11 C. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD PATENTLY SHOW[S] ABSENCE OF VALUABLE uncontrollable fear; (2) the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear
Giving full faith and credence to the evidence offered by the prosecution, CONSIDERATION IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBJECT CHECKS. of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed.24
the trial court found that Ty issued the checks subject of the case in D. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PAYEE OF THE CHECKS WAS FULLY It must appear that the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear is of such
payment of the hospital bills of her mother and rejected the theory of the AWARE OF THE LACK OF FUNDS IN THE ACCOUNT. gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to
defense.12 Thus, on 21 April 1997, the trial court rendered a Decision finding E. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AS WELL AS THE HONORABLE it.25 It should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear for one's life
Ty guilty of seven (7) counts of violation of B.P. 22 and sentencing her to a TRIAL COURT [,] SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED CRIMINAL LAW or limb.26 A mere threat of a future injury is not enough. It should not be
prison term. The dispositive part of the Decision reads: MECHANICALLY, WITHOUT DUE REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE speculative, fanciful, or remote.27 A person invoking uncontrollable fear
CONSEQUENTLY, the accused Vicky C. Ty, for her acts of issuing seven (7) AND EQUITY. must show therefore that the compulsion was such that it reduced him to a
checks in payment of a valid obligation, which turned unfounded on their In its Memorandum,20 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), citing mere instrument acting not only without will but against his will as well. 28 It
respective dates of maturity, is found guilty of seven (7) counts of violations jurisprudence, contends that a check issued as an evidence of debt, though must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of not intended to be presented for payment, has the same effect as an escape.29
imprisonment of SIX MONTHS per count or a total of forty-two (42) months. ordinary check; hence, it falls within the ambit of B.P. 22. And when a check In this case, far from it, the fear, if any, harbored by Ty was not real and
SO ORDERED.13 is presented for payment, the drawee bank will generally accept the same, imminent. Ty claims that she was compelled to issue the checks - -a
Ty interposed an appeal from the Decision of the trial court. Before the regardless of whether it was issued in payment of an obligation or merely condition the hospital allegedly demanded of her before her mother could
Court of Appeals, Ty reiterated her defense that she issued the checks to guarantee said obligation. What the law punishes is the issuance of a be discharged - -for fear that her mother's health might deteriorate further
"under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in bouncing check, not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital or worse, her mother might
avoidance of a greater evil or injury." She also argued that the trial court conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check commit suicide. This is speculative fear; it is not the uncontrollable fear
erred in finding her guilty when evidence showed there was absence of is malum prohibitum.21 contemplated by law.
valuable consideration for the issuance of the checks and the payee had We find the petition to be without merit and accordingly sustain Ty's To begin with, there was no showing that the mother's illness was so life-
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in the account. She protested that conviction. threatening such that her continued stay in the hospital suffering all its
the trial court should not have applied the law mechanically, without due Well-settled is the rule that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial alleged unethical treatment would induce a well-grounded apprehension of
regard to the principles of justice and equity.14 court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect, her death. Secondly, it is not the law's intent to say that any fear exempts
In its Decision dated 31 July 2001, the appellate court affirmed the and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing one from criminal liability much less petitioner's flimsy fear that her mother
judgment of the trial court with modification. It set aside the penalty of that the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would might commit suicide. In other words, the fear she invokes was not
imprisonment and instead sentenced Ty "to pay a fine of sixty thousand substantially affect the disposition of the case.22 Jurisdiction of this Court impending or insuperable as to deprive her of all volition and to make her a
pesos (P60,000.00) equivalent to double the amount of the check, in each over cases elevated from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing or mere instrument without will, moved exclusively by the hospital's threats or
case."15 revising errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals whose factual demands.
In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals rejected Ty's defenses of findings are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms Ty has also failed to convince the Court that she was left with no choice but
involuntariness in the issuance of the checks and the hospital's knowledge the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are to commit a crime. She did not take advantage of the many opportunities
of her checking account's lack of funds. It held that B.P. 22 makes the mere totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly available to her to avoid committing one. By her very own words, she
act of issuing a worthless check punishable as a special offense, it being erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.23 admitted that the collateral or security the hospital required prior to the
a malum prohibitum. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing discharge of her mother may be in the form of postdated checks or
jewelry.30 And if indeed she was coerced to open an account with the bank A scrutiny of the records reveals that petitioner failed to discharge her The knowledge of the payee of the insufficiency or lack of funds of the
and issue the checks, she had all the opportunity to leave the scene to burden of proof. "Valuable consideration may in general terms, be said to drawer with the drawee bank is immaterial as deceit is not an essential
avoid involvement. consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the party element of an offense penalized by B.P. 22. The gravamen of the offense is
Moreover, petitioner had sufficient knowledge that the issuance of checks who makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or some the issuance of a bad check, hence, malice and intent in the issuance
without funds may result in a violation of B.P. 22. She even testified that responsibility, to act, or labor, or service given, suffered or undertaken by thereof is inconsequential.48
her counsel advised her not to open a current account nor issue postdated the other aide. Simply defined, valuable consideration means an obligation In addition, Ty invokes our ruling in Magno v. Court of Appeals49 wherein
checks "because the moment I will not have funds it will be a big to give, to do, or not to do in favor of the party who makes the contract, this Court inquired into the true nature of transaction between the drawer
problem."31 Besides, apart from petitioner's bare assertion, the record is such as the maker or indorser."40 and the payee and finally acquitted the accused, to persuade the Court that
bereft of any evidence to corroborate and bolster her claim that she was In this case, Ty's mother and sister availed of the services and the facilities the circumstances surrounding her case deserve special attention and do
compelled or coerced to cooperate with and give in to the hospital's of the hospital. For the care given to her kin, Ty had a legitimate obligation not warrant a strict and mechanical application of the law.
demands. to pay the hospital by virtue of her relationship with them and by force of Petitioner's reliance on the case is misplaced. The material operative facts
Ty likewise suggests in the prefatory statement of her Petition her signature on her mother's Contract of Admission acknowledging therein obtaining are different from those established in the instant
and Memorandum that the justifying circumstance of state of necessity responsibility for payment, and on the promissory note she executed in petition. In the 1992 case, the bounced checks were issued to cover a
under par. 4, Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code may find application in this favor of the hospital. "warranty deposit" in a lease contract, where the lessor-supplier was also
case. Anent Ty's claim that the obligation to pay the hospital bills was not her the financier of the deposit. It was a modus operandi whereby the supplier
We do not agree. The law prescribes the presence of three requisites to personal obligation because she was not the patient, and therefore there was able to sell or lease the goods while privately financing those in
exempt the actor from liability under this paragraph: (1) that the evil sought was no consideration for the checks, the case of Bridges v. Vann, et desperate need so they may be accommodated. The maker of the check
to be avoided actually exists; (2) that the injury feared be greater than the al.41 tells us that "it is no defense to an action on a promissory note for the thus became an unwilling victim of a lease agreement under the guise of a
one done to avoid it; (3) that there be no other practical and less harmful maker to say that there was no consideration which was beneficial to him lease-purchase agreement. The maker did not benefit at all from the
means of preventing it.32 personally; it is sufficient if the consideration was a benefit conferred upon deposit, since the checks were used as collateral for an accommodation and
In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or a third person, or a detriment suffered by the promisee, at the instance of not to cover the receipt of an actual account or credit for value.
anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or the promissor. It is enough if the obligee foregoes some right or privilege or In the case at bar, the checks were issued to cover the receipt of an actual
anticipated or may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable. 33 Ty suffers some detriment and the release and extinguishment of the original "account or for value." Substantial evidence, as found by the trial court and
could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a obligation of George Vann, Sr., for that of appellants meets the Court of Appeals, has established that the checks were issued in payment of
crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other requirement. Appellee accepted one debtor in place of another and gave the hospital bills of Ty's mother.
forms of security instead of postdated checks to secure her obligation. up a valid, subsisting obligation for the note executed by the appellants. Finally, we agree with the Court of Appeals in deleting the penalty of
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the greater This, of itself, is sufficient consideration for the new notes." imprisonment, absent any proof that petitioner was not a first-time
injury feared should not have been brought about by the negligence or At any rate, the law punishes the mere act of issuing a bouncing check, not offender nor that she acted in bad faith. Administrative Circular 12-
imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor.34 In this case, the the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to 2000,50 adopting the rulings in Vaca v. Court of Appeals51 and Lim v.
issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by Ty's own failure to its issuance.42 B.P. 22 does not make any distinction as to whether the People,52 authorizes the non-imposition of the penalty of imprisonment in
pay her mother's hospital bills. checks within its contemplation are issued in payment of an obligation or to B.P. 22 cases subject to certain conditions. However, the Court resolves to
The Court also thinks it rather odd that Ty has chosen the exempting merely guarantee the obligation.43 The thrust of the law is to prohibit the modify the penalty in view of Administrative Circular 13-2001 53 which
circumstance of uncontrollable fear and the justifying circumstance of state making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation.44 As this clarified Administrative 12-2000. It is stated therein:
of necessity to absolve her of liability. It would not have been half as bizarre Court held in Lim v. People of the Philippines,45 "what is primordial is that The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not
had Ty been able to prove that the issuance of the bounced checks was such issued checks were worthless and the fact of its worthlessness is to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of
done without her full volition. Under the circumstances, however, it is quite known to the appellant at the time of their issuance, a required element preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22.
clear that neither uncontrollable fear nor avoidance of a greater evil or under B.P. Blg. 22." Thus, Administrative Circular 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the
injury prompted the issuance of the bounced checks. The law itself creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where the
Parenthetically, the findings of fact in the Decision of the trial court in the insufficiency of funds. Section 2 of B.P. 22 provides: circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good
Civil Case35 for damages filed by Ty's mother against the hospital is wholly Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of
irrelevant for purposes of disposing the case at bench. While the findings drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty.
therein may establish a claim for damages which, we may add, need only be bank because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when Needless to say, the determination of whether circumstances warrant the
supported by a preponderance of evidence, it does not necessarily presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge. Should the judge
engender reasonable doubt as to free Ty from liability. be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative
As to the issue of consideration, it is presumed, upon issuance of the credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance.
checks, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the same was thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such It is therefore understood that: (1) Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not
issued for valuable consideration.36 Section 2437 of the Negotiable check within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for violations of B.P. 22; (2)
Instruments Law creates a presumption that every party to an instrument not been paid by the drawee. the judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking
acquired the same for a consideration38 or for value.39 In alleging otherwise, Such knowledge is legally presumed from the dishonor of the checks for into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine
Ty has the onus to prove that the checks were issued without insufficiency of funds.46 If not rebutted, it suffices to sustain a conviction.47 whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of
consideration. She must present convincing evidence to overthrow the Petitioner likewise opines that the payee was aware of the fact that she did justice, or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate
presumption. not have sufficient funds with the drawee bank and such knowledge the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or
necessarily exonerates her liability. otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice; (3) should only a fine be
imposed and the accused unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardiopulmonary arrest he passed by their table Baxinela stood up, approached the man from
to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary Secondary to severe bleeding behind and said "Why do you have a gun. I am a policeman." The man did
imprisonment.54 Secondary to gunshot wound." not reply and, instead, turned around and drew his gun. As the man was
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the as per Autopsy Report issued by Dr. Roel A. Escanillas, Medical Officer III, turning, Baxinela also drew his gun and was able to fire first, hitting the man
Court of Appeals, dated 31 July 2001, finding petitioner Vicky C. Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital, Kalibo, Aklan, which wounds on his left arm. After the man fell on the floor, Baxinela grabbed the other
Ty GUILTY of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 directly caused the death of RUPERTO F. LAJO, as per Certificate of Death, man’s firearm and handed it over to Regimen. Regimen then requested one
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner Vicky C. Ty is ORDERED to hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B" and forming part of this of the security guards to transport the wounded man to the hospital.
pay a FINE equivalent to double the amount of each dishonored check Information. Regimen and Baxinela then proceeded to the Kalibo Police Station while
subject of the seven cases at bar with subsidiary imprisonment in case of That as a result of the criminal acts of the accused the heirs of the deceased Legarda and Dalida went home.
insolvency in accordance with Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code. She is suffered actual and compensatory damages in the amount of FIFTY Baxinela took the witness stand as the last witness for the defense.10 He
also ordered to pay private complainant, Manila Doctors' Hospital, the THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00). testified that he and Regimen were walking along Toting Reyes Street,
amount of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P210,000.00) representing CONTRARY TO LAW. looking for a tricycle to take them home, when they were met by Manuba.
the total amount of the dishonored checks. Costs against the petitioner. On April 30, 1997, Baxinela was arraigned and pleaded NOT GUILTY. 3 During Manuba reported to them that there was an armed person, drunk inside
SO ORDERED. pre-trial, Baxinela informed the RTC that he would be claiming the justifying the Superstar Disco Pub and creating trouble. They then proceeded to the
G.R. No. 149652             March 24, 2006 circumstance of self-defense.4 In accordance with the Rules of Criminal pub to verify the report. Once there, they saw Legarda occupying a table
EDUARDO L. BAXINELA, Petitioner-Appellant, Procedure, the defense was the first to present evidence.5 near the entrance with a companion named Toto Dalida. Legarda invited
vs. The first witness for the defense was Insp. Joel Regimen.6 He testified that them to sit at his table. As they were sitting down, Regimen whispered to
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee. on October 19, 1996, at about 12:35 a.m., he and Baxinela were walking him that there was a man with a gun tucked at the back of his waist and
DECISION along Toting Reyes Street in Kalibo, Aklan when they were approached by a told him to watch that person while he tries to look for a telephone to call
AZCUNA, J.: civilian named Romy Manuba who informed them of a drunken person the Kalibo Police Station. As Regimen was about to stand, the armed man
Petitioner SPO2 Eduardo L. Baxinela assails his conviction for the crime of drawing a gun and creating trouble inside the Playboy Disco Pub located on started to walk towards the entrance. When he passed their table, Baxinela
homicide by the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan1 (RTC) in Criminal Case the second floor of the Kingsmen building.7 They immediately proceeded to stood up, introduced himself as a policeman and asked why he had a gun.
No. 4877, as affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- the reported place and, upon arrival, recognized a former colleague, SPO4 The man did not respond but turned to face Baxinela, drawing his gun.
G.R. CR No. 23348. Legarda, who was with a companion. Legarda invited them to his table and Baxinela immediately drew his firearm and beat him to the draw, hitting the
On February 19, 1997, an Information charging Baxinela with the crime of the two obliged. Later, while seated at the table, they saw someone with a man on his left arm. When the man fell to the floor, Baxinela picked up the
homicide was filed as follows:2 handgun visibly tucked at the back of his waist about 4 meters away. man’s gun and handed it over to Regimen. Baxinela also took his wallet for
That on or about the 19th day of October , 1996, early in the morning, at Regimen then instructed Baxinela to take a closer look at this person while identification. Regimen then told one of the security guards to bring the
Poblacion, Municipality of Kalibo, Province of Aklan, Republic of the he makes a call to the Kalibo police station but before Regimen could stand wounded man to the hospital. Thereafter, Baxinela and Regimen went to
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- up, the man with a gun started to walk towards the door. As he passed by the Kalibo Police Station to report the incident and turned over the wallet.
named accused, while armed with a handgun, without justifiable cause and their table, Baxinela stood up, introduced himself as a policeman and asked Next, they proceeded to Camp Pastor Martelino and also reported the
with intent to kill, did then and there wi[l]lfully, unlawfully and feloniously the man why he had a gun with him. The man did not respond and, instead, incident to Col. Bianson.
attack, assault and shoot one RUPERTO F. LAJO, thereby inflicting upon the suddenly drew out his gun. Baxinela then drew his sidearm and was able to To rebut the claim of self-defense, the prosecution presented as its first
latter mortal wounds, to wit: fire first, hitting the man on his upper left arm. When the man fell down, witness, Abelardo Alvarez.11 Alvarez was a security guard assigned to the
"A. EXTERNAL FINDINGS: Baxinela took his gun and wallet and handed them over to Regimen. Kingsmen building during the incident in question. He testified that he was
= .56 cm entrance gunshot wound proximal third Regimen then stated that he enlisted the services of the pub’s security already acquainted with Baxinela and that he saw him, together with
lateral aspect left arm with fracture of the left guard to bring the wounded man to the hospital while he and Baxinela Legarda and Regimen, already in the Superstar Disco Pub as early as 11:00
humerus. proceeded to the Kalibo Police Station and reported the matter to SPO4 p.m. of October 18, 1996 drinking. At around 12:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. there
= 1 cm exit wound proximal third medial aspect left Salvador Advincula. They also went to Camp Pastor Martelino to report the was a minor altercation between the deceased Sgt. Lajo and another
arm. matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Col. Bianson. customer at the pub but eventually the two were able to patch things up.
= 1 cm entrance gunshot wound anterior axillary line The second witness for the defense was Romy Manuba,8 who testified that Lajo was then on his way out when Baxinela followed Lajo with a gun
5th intercostals space left chest. on October 19, 1996, at around 12:30 a.m., he was on the second floor of already drawn out. Then, from behind, Baxinela held Lajo’s left arm and
B. INTERNAL FINDINGS the Kingsmen building drinking liquor. While inside, he saw a drunken man said "Ano ka hay? Mam-an may baril ka?"12 He then heard Lajo respond "I
= One liter of flood left thoracic cavity wearing a white polo shirt accosting several persons with a gun. Fearing the am a MIG, Pare" after that Alvarez heard an explosion coming from
= Perforated left diaphragm. man with the gun, he left the place to go home. On his way home he saw Baxinela’s gun. Baxinela then got a gun from Lajo’s waist and handed it over
= One – two liters of blood in the abdominal cavity. Regimen and Baxinela and he reported to them what he had seen earlier. to Regimen. Afterwards Baxinela held both of Lajo’s arms, who was still
= 2 point perforation stomach The third witness for the defense was SPO4 Nepomuceno Legarda standing, and pushed him against the wall and repeated his question. Lajo
= Multiple perforation small, and large intestines and (Ret.).9 He testified that on October 18, 1996, at about 11:00 p.m., he was answered "Why did you shoot me? I am also a military." At this point Lajo
mesenteries. inside the Superstar Disco Pub drinking beer with a companion named Toto got out his wallet and gave it to Baxinela. Baxinela opened the wallet and
= (+) Retroperitonial hematoma Dalida. At about 12:40 a.m., Legarda saw Regimen and Baxinela enter the looked at an ID. Afterwards Baxinela and Regimen just left and did nothing
DIAGNOSIS: Gunshot wound left of arm with fracture of the pub and he invited them over to his table. Later, as they were seating on to aid Lajo. Alvarez and his fellow security guard, Rolando Gabriel, then
humerus, penetrating the (L) thoracic cavity perforating the the table, he noticed Regimen whisper something to Baxinela and, at the picked up Lajo and boarded him on a tricycle. Gabriel brought him to the
diaphragm, abdomen, stomach and, intestines and same time, pointing to a man with a handgun visibly tucked at the back of hospital, while Alvarez remained at his post.
retroperitoneum with slugs lodging the vertebral colum[n]. his waist. He then observed the armed person heading for the door. But as
The second witness of the prosecution was Rolando Gabriel.13 Gabriel OF Prision Mayor, as Minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS A. He immediately drew his gun turning towards me and aimed it at me.19
substantially corroborated the testimony of Alvarez on what occurred on and TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum. Subsequently, when the trial court propounded clarificatory questions,
the night in question. He testified that he noticed the presence of Lajo SO ORDERED. Baxinela’s new assertion was that the firearm was still at the back of Lajo:
inside the pub at around 10:30 p.m. of October 18, 1996 while he first saw Baxinela filed the present petition for review on certiorari citing the Q. At the moment that you fired, was he already able to dr[a]w his firearm
Baxinela, Regimen and Legarda there as early as 11:00 p.m. At around following grounds: or not yet?
12:45 a.m., he witnessed Lajo going towards the entrance of the pub where A. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED A. Yes sir, already pulled out but still at the back.20
Baxinela was already standing and holding a .45 caliber pistol. Baxinela IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION. Furthermore, the follow-up investigation conducted by the police yielded a
approached Lajo from behind and held his left shoulder asking "Who are B. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE JUSTIFYING different picture of what happened. This was entered into the police
you?" Lajo responded "I am MIG." Afterwards he was shot by Baxinela. CIRCUMSTANCES OF SELF DEFENSE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE LAWFUL records as Entry No. 3359 and it reads in part: 21
Baxinela then got Lajo’s gun from his waist and gave it to Regimen. PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY UNDER ARTICLE 11 PARAGRAPHS 1 AND x x x SPO2 Eduardo Baxinela accosted the victim why he ha[d] in his
Thereafter, Baxinela, with both hands, pushed Lajo against the wall and 5, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. possession a firearm and when the victim SGT Ruperto Lajo PA was about
again asked "What are you?" Lajo got his wallet from his back pocket and C. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN to get his wallet on his back pocket for his ID, SPO2 Eduardo Baxinela
handed it over to Baxinela. After opening the wallet Baxinela and Regimen CONVICTING THE ACCUSED. anticipated that the victim was drawing his firearm on his waist prompting
left the disco pub. Lajo, still standing, took two steps and then fell down. D. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN said policeman to shoot the victim. x x x
Gabriel and Alvarez then picked Lajo up and carried him to a tricycle which NOT CONSIDERING THE QUALIFIED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAVOR The Court now proceeds to determine if, following the prosecution’s
took him to the hospital. Gabriel also stated that ten minutes before the OF THE ACCUSED. version of what happened, Baxinela can claim the justifying circumstances
shooting incident there was another incident where Lajo accosted some Resolution of the petition will entail an initial determination of which of self-defense and fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or
customer but afterwards he saw that the two shook hands and embraced version of the incident will be accepted. The defense alleges that Baxinela office.
each other. proceeded to the Superstar Disco Pub in response to the information given The requisites for self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the
The third witness for the prosecution was Salvador Advincula, the PNP by Manuba that there was an armed drunken man accosting several people victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused; and 3)
Desk Officer who entered in the police blotter the incident that occurred in inside the pub. Once they arrived, they saw Lajo with a handgun visibly employment of reasonable means to prevent and repel and aggression.22 By
Superstar Disco Pub. He also testified on the events that occurred inside the tucked behind his waist. When Baxinela introduced himself as a policeman invoking self-defense, Baxinela, in effect, admits killing Lajo, thus shifting
precinct wherein the gun of Lajo accidentally fell on the table and fired. and asked why he had a handgun, Lajo suddenly drew on him prompting upon him the burden of the evidence on these elements.
The last witness for the prosecution was the wife of Lajo, Janet O. Lajo, who Baxinela to pull out his gun and fire upon Lajo, critically wounding him. The first requisite is an indispensable requirement of self-defense. It is a
testified as to damages.14 Thereafter, the defense claims that Regimen ordered the security guards to condition sine qua non, without which there can be no self-defense,
As a sur-rebuttal witness, the defense presented Ronald Nahil who testified bring Lajo to the hospital while they proceed to the police station to report whether complete or incomplete.23 On this requisite alone, Baxinela’s
that he was on the ground floor of Kingsmen building with Alvarez and the incident. defense fails. Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and
Gabriel when they heard a shot ring out from the second floor.15 The prosecution, on the other hand, contends that Baxinela was already in unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent danger
After receiving all of the evidence, the RTC found the version of the the pub drinking with Regimen and Legarda for more than a couple of hours thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.24 The attack
prosecution, that Baxinela shot Lajo as the latter was turning around and prior to the shooting incident. After witnessing an altercation between Lajo must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending
without having drawn his gun, more convincing, and rendered a decision and another customer, Baxinela decided to confront Lajo on why he had a attack would not be sufficient. As the evidence shows, there was no
convicting Baxinela. The RTC, however, considered in favor of Baxinela the gun with him. Baxinela approached Lajo from behind and held the latter on imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at that moment. Just
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and provocation. The the left shoulder with one hand while holding on to his .45 caliber service before Baxinela shot Lajo, the former was safely behind the victim and
dispositive portion of the decision is as follows:16 firearm with the other. As Lajo was turning around, to see who was holding his arm. It was Lajo who was at a disadvantage. In fact, it was
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused SPO2 EDUARDO BAXINELA guilty confronting him, Baxinela shot him. Baxinela then got Lajo’s wallet and fled Baxinela who was the aggressor when he grabbed Lajo’s shoulder and
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, and considering the the scene with Regimen. started questioning him. And when Lajo was shot, it appears that he was
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and provocation, and As mentioned, the RTC and CA accepted the prosecution’s version. The just turning around to face Baxinela and, quite possibly, reaching for his
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer Court finds no reason to disturb such findings. Factual findings of the trial wallet. None of these acts could conceivably be deemed as unlawful
the penalty of imprisonment of 4 years of prision correccional medium as court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive aggression on the part of Lajo.
minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor medium as maximum. unless circumstances are present that would show that the lower courts Next, we consider the alternative defense of fulfillment of a duty. In order
The accused is further ordered to pay a) the sum of P50,000.00 as civil have overlooked, misunderstood or misconstrued cogent facts that may to avail of this justifying circumstance it must be shown that: 1) the accused
indemnity for the death of Sgt. Ruperto F. Lajo; b) then sum of P81,000.00 alter the outcome of the case.18 It does not appear that the conclusions that acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
as actual and compensatory damages; and c) the sum of P30,000.00 as led to the conviction of Baxinela were arbitrarily reached by the lower office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary
moral damages; plus costs of suit. courts and Baxinela has failed to point out any relevant circumstance that consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a
SO ORDERED. would convince the Court that a re-examination of the facts is warranted. right or office.25 While the first condition is present, the second is clearly
On appeal, the CA modified Baxinela’s conviction by disallowing the On the contrary, Baxinela’s version is challenged by his own contradicting lacking. Baxinela’s duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a gun
mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation. Accordingly, the testimony and other documentary evidence. Early in his testimony, Baxinela tucked behind his waist in a public place. This was what Baxinela was doing
dispositive portion of the appellate court’s decision reads as follows:17 maintained that Lajo had already pulled his handgun and was aiming at him when he confronted Lajo at the entrance, but perhaps through anxiety,
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision appealed from finding the when he fired: edginess or the desire to take no chances, Baxinela exceeded his duty by
Appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged Q. What else did you do after identifying yourself as a policeman and firing upon Lajo who was not at all resisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be
is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION, that the Appellant is hereby meted ask[ing] why he has a gun? considered due performance of a duty if at that time Lajo posed no serious
an indeterminate penalty of from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY A. He did not respond. threat or harm to Baxinela or to the civilians in the pub.
Q. What else happened if anything happened?
Essentially, Baxinela is trying to convince the Court that he should be
absolved of criminal liability by reason of a mistake of fact, a doctrine first
enunciated in United States v. Ah Chong.26 It was held in that case that a
mistake of fact will exempt a person from criminal liability so long as the
alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.
In examining the circumstances attendant in the present case, the Court
finds that there was negligence on the part of Baxinela. Lajo, when he was
shot, was simply turning around to see who was accosting him. Moreover,
he identified himself saying "I am MIG." These circumstances alone would
not lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that Baxinela’s life was
in peril. Thus, his act of shooting Lajo, to the mind of this Court, constitutes
clear negligence. But even if the Court assumes that Lajo’s actions were
aggressive enough to appear that he was going for his gun, there were a
number of procedures that could have been followed in order to avoid a
confrontation and take control of the situation. Baxinela, whom the Court
assumes not to be a rookie policeman, could have taken precautionary
measures by simply maintaining his hold on to Lajo’s shoulders, keeping
Lajo facing away from him, forcing Lajo to raise his hands and then take
Lajo’s weapon. There was also Regimen who should have assisted Baxinela
in disabling and disarming Lajo. The events inside the disco pub that
unnecessarily cost the life of Lajo did not have to happen had Baxinela not
been negligent in performing his duty as a police officer.
The Court will, however, attribute to Baxinela the incomplete defense of
fulfillment of a duty as a privileged mitigating circumstance. In Lacanilao v.
Court of Appeals,27 it was held that if the first condition is fulfilled but the
second is wanting, Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable so that
the penalty lower than one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall
be imposed.28 Accordingly, the Court grants in favor of Baxinela a privileged
mitigating circumstance and lower his penalty by one degree. His
entitlement to the ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
is also recognized, thereby further reducing his penalty to its minimum.
The Court commiserates with our policemen who regularly thrust their lives
in zones of danger in order to maintain peace and order and acknowledges
the apprehensions faced by their families whenever they go on duty. But
the use of unnecessary force or wanton violence is not justified when the
fulfillment of their duty as law enforcers can be effected otherwise. A
"shoot first, think later" attitude can never be countenanced in a civilized
society.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. The
conviction of appellant Eduardo Baxinela for the crime of homicide
is AFFIRMED but his sentence is reduced to an indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as
minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum. The
awards of damages are affirmed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.