You are on page 1of 58

G.R. No.

150723 July 11, 2006 The prosecution presented six witnesses: (1) Faustino Delariarte ("Delariarte"); (2) SPO1
RAMONITO MANABAN, petitioner, Dominador Salvador ("SPO1 Salvador"); (3) Rodolfo Bilgera ("Bilgera"); (4) Celedonia H. Tan
vs. ("Tan"); (5) Dr. Eduardo T. Vargas ("Dr. Vargas"); and (6) Editha Bautista ("Editha").
COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Delariarte was a security guard who was employed by the same security agency as Manaban.
DECISION Delariarte testified that in the early morning of 11 October 1996, their duty officer, Diosdado
CARPIO, J.: Morga, called him and informed him that one of the guards stationed at the BPI Kalayaan Branch
The Case ("BPI Kalayaan") was involved in a shooting incident. When he arrived at the bank, Delariarte
This is a petition for review1 of the Decision2 dated 21 May 2001 and the Resolution3 dated 8 saw Manaban inside the bank using the phone. He also saw Joselito Bautista ("Bautista") lying
November 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23790. In its 21 May 2001 on the ground but still alive. He then told their company driver, Virgilio Cancisio ("Cancisio"),
Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon to take Bautista to the hospital but to be careful since there was a gun tucked in Bautista’s waist.
City, Branch 219 ("trial court"), finding Ramonito Manaban ("Manaban") guilty of the crime of Bautista allegedly reeked of alcohol. Delariarte further testified that when Manaban came out
homicide. In its 8 November 2001 Resolution, the Court of Appeals modified its Decision by of the bank, Manaban admitted to Delariarte that he shot Bautista.7
reducing the award for loss of earning capacity. SPO1 Salvador was a police investigator assigned at Station 10, Philippine National Police-
The Facts Central Police District Command (PNP-CPDC) of Quezon City. SPO1 Salvador testified that
The facts as narrated by the trial court are as follows: on 11 October 1996, about 2:05 a.m., the duty desk officer SPO2 Redemption Negre sent him,
On October 11, 1996, at around 1:25 o’clock in the morning, Joselito Bautista, a father SPO1 Jerry Abad and SPO1 Ruben Reyes to BPI Kalayaan to investigate an alleged shooting
and a member of the UP Police Force, took his daughter, Frinzi, who complained of incident. SPO1 Salvador testified that when they arrived at BPI Kalayaan, they were met by
difficulty in breathing, to the UP Health Center. There, the doctors prescribed certain Delariarte and Cancisio. Manaban then approached them and surrendered his service firearm, a
medicines to be purchased. Needing money therefore, Joselito Bautista, who had .38 caliber revolver, to SPO1 Salvador. Manaban allegedly admitted shooting Bautista. SPO1
taken alcoholic drinks earlier, proceeded to the BPI Kalayaan Branch to withdraw Salvador and his team investigated the crime scene. According to SPO1 Salvador, he saw
some money from its Automated Teller Machine (ATM). Bautista lying on his back near the Automated Teller Machine ("ATM"). A .38 caliber revolver
Upon arrival at the bank, Bautista proceeded to the ATM booth but because he could inside a locked holster was tucked in Bautista’s right waist. SPO1 Salvador noticed that Bautista,
not effectively withdraw money, he started kicking and pounding on the machine. For who was still breathing, had been shot in the back. They brought Bautista to the East Avenue
said reason, the bank security guard, Ramonito Manaban, approached and asked him Medical Center where Bautista later died. Thereafter, they proceeded to the police station and
what the problem was. Bautista complained that his ATM was retrieved by the turned over Manaban to their desk officer for proper disposition and investigation. 8
machine and that no money came out of it. After Manaban had checked the receipt, Dr. Vargas, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Medico-Legal Officer, conducted an
he informed Bautista that the Personal Identification Number (PIN) entered was autopsy on Bautista’s cadaver. Dr. Vargas testified that Bautista died of a gunshot wound.
wrong and advised him to just return the next morning. This angered Bautista all the According to him, the point of entry of the bullet was at the back, on the right side of the body
more and resumed pounding on the machine. Manaban then urged him to calm down and there was no exit point. He stated that he was able to recover the slug from the left anterior
and referred him to their customer service over the phone. Still not mollified, Bautista portion of the victim’s body and that he later submitted the slug to the NBI Ballistics Division.
continued raging and striking the machine. When Manaban could no longer pacify Dr. Vargas further stated that the bullet wound was fatal because the bullet hit the right lung and
him, he fired a warning shot. That diverted the attention of Bautista. Instead of venting lacerated parts of the liver, stomach and the pancreas. Based on the location of the gunshot
his ire against the machine, he confronted Manaban. After some exchange of words, wound, Dr. Vargas deduced that the assailant must have been behind the victim, on the right
a shot rang out fatally hitting Bautista.4 side, when he shot the victim.9 Dr. Vargas also testified that the absence of signs of near-fire
On 24 October 1996, Manaban was charged with the crime of murder. The Information states: indicates that the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the point of entry was more than
That on or about the 11th day of October 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above- 24 inches. During cross-examination, Dr. Vargas testified that he was able to take blood samples
named accused, armed with a gun, and with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, did from the victim which, based on the NBI Chemistry Division analysis, tested positive for
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ alcohol.10 Dr. Vargas issued a certificate of post-mortem examination11 and an autopsy report.12
personal violence upon the person of one JOSELITO BAUTISTA, by then and there, Bilgera was a ballistician at the Firearms Investigation Division (FID) of the NBI. Bilgera
shooting him at the back portion of his body, thereby inflicting upon said JOSELITO testified that upon receiving a letter-request dated 11 October 1996 from PNP Police Inspector
BAUTISTA mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his Percival Fontanilla, he conducted a ballistic examination on the following specimens submitted
untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said JOSELITO to him:
BAUTISTA.5 1. One (1) ARMSCOR 2015, Caliber .38 Revolver, SN-28909 marked "DBS";
When arraigned on 4 December 1996,6 Manaban pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Trial 2. One (1) ARMSCOR 200, Caliber .38 Revolver, SN-P03471 marked "DBS";
then followed. 3. One (1) Caliber .38 one badly deformed copper coated lead bullet marked "RM";
The Trial 4. Two (2) Caliber .38 empty shells marked "RM-1" and "RM-2";
The Prosecution’s Version 5. One (1) Caliber .38 misfired ammunition marked "RM-3";
6. Nine (9) Caliber .38 ammunition marked "RM-4", "RM-5", "RM-6" and "JB-1" to
"JB-6"; and

1

7. One (1) Caliber .38 deformed copper coated lead bullet marked "JB". (Re-FID No. Manaban recounted that he then went inside the bank and called the police and his agency to
606-14-1096 [N-96-2047]).13 report the incident. While he was inside the bank, a fellow security guard arrived and asked
Based on the examination, Bilgera concluded that the bullet which was extracted from Bautista’s what happened. Manaban answered, "wala yan, lasing."
body by the medico-legal officer was fired from the ARMSCOR 2015 .38 Caliber revolver with Later, a mobile patrol car arrived. Manaban related the incident to the police officer and
Serial No. 2890914 and that the empty shells also came from the same gun. Bilgera submitted a informed him that Bautista was still alive and had a gun. Manaban then surrendered his service
written report15 on the result of his examination. firearm to the police officer. According to Manaban, he fired his gun twice – once in the air as
Editha, the widow of Joselito Bautista, testified that she was married to Bautista on 22 December a warning shot and the second time at Bautista who was about four meters from him. 19
1993 in civil rites and that they have four children, the eldest of whom was 13 years old. Editha On cross-examination, Manaban further explained that after he fired the warning shot, Bautista
stated that her husband, who was a member of the University of the Philippines Police Force kept coming toward him. Manaban pointed his gun at Bautista and warned him not to come
("UP Police Force") since 1985, was receiving a monthly salary of P5,050 at the time of his closer. When Bautista turned his back, Manaban thought Bautista was about to draw his gun
death. She narrated that on 11 October 1996, about 1:25 a.m., her husband brought their daughter when he placed his right hand on his waist. Fearing for his life, he pulled the trigger and shot
Frinzi who had an asthma attack to the UP Health Center where she was confined for three days. Manaban. According to Manaban, "[n]oong makita ko siya na pabalikwas siya, na sadya
According to Editha, her husband then left to withdraw money at BPI Kalayaan for the purchase bubunot ng baril, sa takot ko na baka maunahan niya ako at mapatay, doon ko na rin nakalabit
of medicines. Later, she was fetched by members of the UP Police Force who informed her that yung gatilyo ng baril." Manaban declared that it did not occur to him to simply disable the victim
her husband had been shot. Editha claimed that as a consequence of her husband’s death, she for fear that Bautista would shoot him first.20
spent more than P111,00016 for the nine-day wake, embalmment and funeral services.17 Javelona was an ATM Service Assistant of BPI. Javelona testified that on 11 October 1996,
The prosecution and the defense agreed to dispense with the testimony of Tan, the Assistant between 1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., she received a call from a client at BPI Kalayaan. The client,
Manager of BPI Kalayaan. Instead, they just agreed to stipulate that on 11 October 1996, about who was later identified as Bautista, complained: "Nagwi-withdraw ako dito sa ATM Kalayaan.
7:45 a.m., Tan and BPI Custodian Elma R. Piñano retrieved BPI Express Teller Card No. 3085- Mali daw yung PIN ko, alam ko tama yung PIN ko. Ilang beses ko nang ginamit, mali pa rin.
2616-21 issued to Bautista which was captured by the ATM because a wrong Personal Kailangan kong mag-withdraw."
Identification Number (PIN) was entered.18 Javelona tried to placate Bautista and advised him not to insert his card anymore because it
The Defense’s Version might be captured by the machine and to try again later in the morning. Bautista allegedly
The defense presented four witnesses: (1) Manaban; (2) Renz Javelona ("Javelona"); (3) Tan; answered angrily: "Na capture na nga, eh! Tama na nga yung PIN number [sic]. Hindi ako
and (4) Patrick Peralta ("Peralta"). pwedeng hindi makakuha ng pera. Kailangan kong bumili ng gamot para sa anak ko. Hindi ko
Manaban, the accused, testified that he was employed by Eagle Star Security Agency as a naman kasalanan ito." Javelona replied: "Sir, hindi ho natin makukuha ang card ninyo ngayon
security guard and was assigned at BPI Kalayaan. On 10 October 1996, he was on duty from kasi ang makaka-open lang ho ng ATM machine ay ang officer ng Kalayaan Branch. Even if
7:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following day. makuha natin ang card ninyo ngayon, hindi pa ninyo magagamit ngayon. Magagamit lang ninyo
Manaban narrated that on 11 October 1996, about 1:40 a.m., Bautista tried to withdraw money as soon as mag-pa-encode kayo ng PIN number [sic]."
from the ATM. Manaban then saw Bautista pounding and kicking the ATM. When Manaban Bautista then reiterated angrily his dire need to withdraw money for the medicine of his
asked Bautista what was the problem, Bautista replied that no money came out from the daughter. Javelona apologized to Bautista and informed him that there was really nothing she
machine. According to Manaban, Bautista appeared to be intoxicated. could do at that time. She also advised Bautista to go back to the bank at 9:00 a.m. to get his
Manaban looked at the receipt issued to Bautista and saw that the receipt indicated that a wrong ATM card and also to withdraw money over the counter. Bautista refused to be pacified and
PIN was entered. Manaban informed Bautista that the ATM captured Bautista’s ATM card started cursing so Javelona decided to hang up the phone.21
because he entered the wrong PIN. He then advised Bautista to return the following day when Tan, the Assistant Manager of BPI Kalayaan, testified that when she reported for work in the
the staff in charge of servicing the ATM would be around. morning of 11 October 1996, she discovered that the ATM was out of order. According to Tan,
Bautista replied that he needed the money very badly and then resumed pounding on the ATM. the ATM keyboard was not properly mounted and the keys were damaged. Also, the telephone
Manaban tried to stop Bautista and called by telephone the ATM service personnel to pacify beside the ATM was hung up. Tan then called Peralta, the technician, to have the ATM repaired.
Bautista. Bautista talked to the ATM service personnel and Manaban heard him shouting When Peralta opened the ATM, they found Bautista’s ATM card which was captured by the
invectives and saw him pounding and kicking the ATM again. machine.22
When Manaban failed to pacify Bautista, Manaban fired a warning shot in the air. Bautista then Peralta, a Customer Engineer Specialist, testified that on 11 October 1996, BPI Kalayaan sought
faced him and told him not to block his way because he needed the money very badly. Bautista his assistance regarding their ATM. When Peralta arrived at BPI Kalayaan, he talked to Tan and
allegedly raised his shirt and showed his gun which was tucked in his waist. Manaban stepped then proceeded to the ATM to assess the damage. According to Peralta, the ATM keyboard was
back and told Bautista not to draw his gun, otherwise he would shoot. damaged and mis-aligned.23
However, Bautista allegedly kept on moving toward Manaban, who again warned Bautista not The Trial Court’s Ruling
to come near him or he would be forced to shoot him. Bautista suddenly turned his back and On 14 April 1999, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
was allegedly about to draw his gun. Fearing that he would be shot first, Manaban pulled the WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
trigger and shot Bautista. Homicide, the Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of Prision
Correccional, as minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Pris[i]on

2

Mayor, as maximum; to pay indemnity to the heirs of Joselito Bautista for his death When the accused invokes self-defense, he in effect admits killing the victim and the burden is
in the amount of P75,000.00; and actual damages in the amount of P111,324.00 for shifted to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life.27 The accused must establish by
the nine-day wake, embalm[ing] and funeral services, and P1,418,040.00 for the loss clear and convincing evidence that all the requisites of self-defense are present.28
of Bautista’s earning capacity, the last to be paid by installment at least P3,030.00 a Under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the three requisites to prove self-
month until fully paid with the balance earning interest at the rate of six percent (6%) defense as a justifying circumstance which may exempt an accused from criminal liability are:
per annum; and to pay the costs. (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
SO ORDERED.24 employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part
The trial court held that the defense failed to establish self-defense as a justifying circumstance. of the accused or the person defending himself.29 Unlawful aggression is an indispensable
According to the trial court, unlawful aggression, which is the most essential element to support requisite of self-defense.30 Self-defense is founded on the necessity on the part of the person
the theory of self-defense, was lacking in this case. The trial court found that, contrary to being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression.31 Thus, without prior unlawful and
Manaban’s claim, Bautista was not about to draw his gun to shoot Manaban. Evidence show unprovoked attack by the victim, there can be no complete or incomplete self-defense.32
that Bautista’s gun was still tucked in his waist inside a locked holster. Furthermore, the trial Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical
court held that Bautista could not have surprised Manaban with a preemptive attack because injury upon a person.33 A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful
Manaban himself testified that he already had his gun pointed at Bautista when they were facing aggression,34 unless the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful
each other. The trial court likewise rejected Manaban’s claim of exemption from criminal intent to cause injury.35 There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger
liability because he acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater thereof, which puts the defendant’s life in real peril.36
injury. The trial court held that the requisites for the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. First, Bautista was shot
fear under paragraph 6, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code are not present in this case. at the back as evidenced by the point of entry of the bullet. Second, when Bautista was shot, his
However, the trial court credited Manaban with two mitigating circumstances: voluntary gun was still inside a locked holster and tucked in his right waist. Third, when Bautista turned
surrender and obfuscation. his back at Manaban, Manaban was already pointing his service firearm at Bautista. These
The Court of Appeals’ Ruling circumstances clearly belie Manaban’s claim of unlawful aggression on Bautista's part.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals later Manaban testified:
reconsidered and modified its decision with respect only to the award of loss of earning capacity. ATTY. ANCANAN
Using the formula 2/3 [80 – age at the time of death] x [gross annual income – 80% gross annual Q: You said the victim showed his gun by raising his shirt?
income], the Court of Appeals recomputed the award for loss of earning capacity. In its A: Yes, sir.
Resolution dated 8 November 2001, the Court of Appeals reduced the award for the loss of the Q: The victim never drew his gun?
victim’s earning capacity from P1,418,040 to P436,320. A: He was about to draw the gun when he turned around.
The Issues Q: My question is when the victim was facing you, the victim never drew his gun?
In his petition for review, Manaban submits that: A: Not yet, sir.
1. The Respondent Court gravely erred in affirming the erroneous factual appreciation Q: And when you told the victim not to come close, he did not come closer anymore?
and interpretation by the trial court a quo in practically affirming the decision of the A: He walked towards me, sir.
latter court which are based on a clear misappreciation of facts and findings grounded Q: For how many steps?
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures "in a way probably not in accord A: I cannot remember how many steps.
with law or with the applicable jurisprudence of the Supreme Court." Q: And according to you, while he was facing you and walking towards you he
2. The Respondent Court gravely erred in ignoring petitioner’s self-defense on the suddenly turned his back to you, is that correct?
sole fact that the entrance of the deceased victim’s wound was from the back. A: Bumalikwas po at parang bubunot ng baril.
3. The Respondent Court gravely erred in concluding that petitioner failed to establish Q: Let us get the meaning of "bumalikwas", tumalikod sa iyo?
unlawful aggression just because the holster of the victim was still in a lock position. A: Bumalikwas po (witness demonstrating).
4. Granting arguendo that petitioner made a mistake in his appreciation that there was Q: Will you please demonstrate to us how the victim "bumalikwas"?
an attempt on the part of the deceased victim to draw his gun who executed A: When he was facing me and I told him, "Sir, you just be there otherwise I am going
"bumalikwas," such mistake of fact is deemed justified. to take the gun" and at that moment, he, the victim turned his back and simultaneously
5. Finally, the Respondent Court gravely erred in awarding exorbitant and baseless drew the gun.
award of damages to the heirs of deceased victim.25 Q: When he was facing you, the victim never drew his gun, is that correct?
The Court’s Ruling A: Not yet, sir.
The petition is partly meritorious. Q: And according to you, it was at that point when he turned his back on you
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct that he tried to draw his gun?
errors though unassigned in the appeal, or reverse the lower court’s decision on grounds other A: Yes, sir.
than those the parties raised as errors.26 Q: You said that he tried to draw, but the fact is he merely placed his hand on
Unlawful Aggression is an Indispensable Requisite of Self-Defense his waist?

3

A: No, sir, when I saw him, when he was hit, I saw him, the hand was already on COURT
the gun but still tucked on his waist (witness places his hand on his right waist Witness may answer.
with fingers open). A: It was taught to us, sir, but it depends on my situation. If the person kept on
Q: And it was at that precise moment while the victim’s back was turned on you doing what I told him not to do and it would reach a point that it would endanger
that you fired your shot? my life, of course even if you were in my place, you would do the same thing, so
A: When he was about to turn his back and it seems about to take his gun, that nakipagsabayan na ako, sir.
is the time I shot him because of my fear that he would be ahead in pulling his Q: But in this particular case when you fired your second shot, the victim’s back was
gun and he might kill me. towards you, is that not correct?
Q: When you said, when you fired your shot, the victim’s gun was still tucked in ATTY. CARAANG
his right waist, is that correct? Objection, already answered, your Honor.
A: Yes, sir, his hand was on his waist. COURT
Q: You just answer the question. Was the victim’s gun still tucked on his Witness may answer.
waistline? A: No, sir, I shot him only once, not twice.
A: Yes, sir. Q: Please answer the question. When you fired your second shot . . .
Q: And his hand was merely placed on his hips. The victim’s right hand was merely A: Bumalikwas ho ’yon eh.
placed on his right hip? Q: Please answer the question.
ATTY. CARAANG A: Yes, sir.
I object. The witness testified that he was about to draw his gun. Q: And because his back was towards you, you could have easily disabled him
COURT by firing at his leg or at his arms, is that not correct?
He is asking the question so he has to answer. ATTY. CARAANG
A: No, sir, the gun was on his waist. I object, your Honor, it was already answered. He said he was not given the
ATTY. ANCANAN opportunity to have a second thought and at that moment he was able to pull
Q: At the precise time that you fired your second shot, you could have aimed the trigger of his gun.
your gun at the extremities of the victim, meaning legs or arms, is that correct? ATTY. ANCANAN
A: When I saw him that he was about to draw his gun because of my fear that he The witness already admitted that when he fired his gun, the victim’s back
would get ahead of me and he would kill me, I did not mind anymore, I just was towards the witness, so my last question is just a follow-up.
inunahan ko siya. ATTY. CARAANG
ATTY. CARAANG But the witness testified that he was not given the opportunity to have a
May I request that the answer of the witness be quoted as is? second thought, that is why right then and there, he pulled the trigger of his
A: Noong makita ko siya na pabalikwas siya, na sabay bubunot ng baril, sa takot gun.
ko na baka maunahan niya ako at mapatay, doon ko na rin nakalabit yung COURT
gatilyo ng baril ko. Objection noted, witness may answer.
ATTY. ANCANAN A: What I was thinking at that time, was just to disarm him but when he turned,
Q: Mr. Witness, how long have you been a security guard before this incident? bumalikwas, and I saw that he was going to draw a firearm and that was when I
A: Around 7 months, sir. decided to "makipagsabayan."
Q: Now, before you were employed as security guard by the Eagle Star Security xxx xxx xxx
Agency, did you undergo any training as a security guard? RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
A: Yes, sir. ATTY. CARAANG
Q: Where? Q: Mr. Witness, when you and the victim were facing each other, the gun was
A: Camp Crame, sir. already pointed to him, is it not? Your gun?
Q: For how long? A: Yes, sir, I pointed my gun at him.37
A: Three (3) days, sir. The allegation of Manaban that Bautista was about to draw his gun when he turned his back at
Q: And what did you learn from those 3 days training as security guard? Manaban is mere speculation. Besides, Manaban was already aiming his loaded firearm at
A: Our duties as security guard were lectured to us, sir. Bautista when the latter turned his back. In that situation, it was Bautista whose life was in
Q: Now, were you not taught during the training that in any given situation, your danger considering that Manaban, who had already fired a warning shot, was pointing his
first duty is to disable first an aggressor? firearm at Bautista. Bautista, who was a policeman, would have realized this danger to his life
ATTY. CARAANG and would not have attempted to draw his gun which was still inside a locked holster tucked in
Objection, your Honor, I think that is no longer material besides, that his waist. Furthermore, if Manaban really feared that Bautista was about to draw his gun to shoot
is not part of my direct examination.

4

him, Manaban could have easily disabled Bautista by shooting his arm or leg considering that any other competent proof for food expenses and rental fee for jeeps for the funeral. Editha
Manaban’s firearm was already aimed at Bautista. merely submitted a typewritten "Summary of Food Expenses & Others."46 A mere list of
Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a real threat to his life and the peril expenses, without any official receipts or any other evidence obtainable, does not to prove actual
sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary. 38 Absent such actual or imminent expenses incurred.47 Competent proof of the actual expenses must be presented to justify an
peril to one’s life or limb, there is nothing to repel and there is no justification for taking the life award for actual damages.48 In this case, only the following expenses were duly supported by
or inflicting injuries on another.39 official receipts and other proof :
Voluntary Surrender and Obfuscation 1. Embalming fee49 P11,000
The trial court credited Manaban with two mitigating circumstances: voluntary surrender and
obfuscation. 2. Bronze Casket50 25,000
It is undisputed that Manaban called the police to report the shooting incident. When the police 3. Cadillac Hearse fee51 3,500
arrived, Manaban surrendered his service firearm and voluntarily went with the police to the
4. Funeral Services52 30,000
police station for investigation. Thus, Manaban is entitled to the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. Total P69,500
On obfuscation, we find that the facts of the case do not entitle Manaban to such mitigating Thus, we reduce the actual damages granted from P111,324 to P69,500.
circumstance. Under paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, the mitigating We likewise reduce the indemnity for death from P75,000 to P50,000 in accordance with
circumstance of passion and obfuscation is appreciated where the accused acted upon an impulse prevailing jurisprudence.53
so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. The requisites of the WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of Appeals
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation are: (1) that there should be an act both dated 21 May 2001 and its Resolution dated 8 November 2001. We find petitioner Ramonito
unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) that the act which produced Manaban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. Applying the Indeterminate
the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length Sentence Law and taking into account the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. 40 Ramonito Manaban is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from six
In his testimony, Manaban admitted shooting Bautista because Bautista turned around and was years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion
allegedly about to draw his gun to shoot Manaban. The act of Bautista in turning around is not temporal as maximum. Ramonito Manaban is ordered to pay the heirs of Joselito
unlawful and sufficient cause for Manaban to lose his reason and shoot Bautista. That Manaban Bautista: P892,570.56 as indemnity for loss of earning capacity; P69,500 as actual damages;
interpreted such act of Bautista as preparatory to drawing his gun to shoot Manaban does not and P50,000 as indemnity for death.
make Bautista’s act unlawful. The threat was only in the mind of Manaban and is mere SO ORDERED
speculation which is not sufficient to produce obfuscation which is mitigating. 41 Besides, the
threat or danger was not grave or serious considering that Manaban had the advantage over
Bautista because Manaban was already pointing his firearm at Bautista when the latter turned
his back. The defense failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the cause that
allegedly produced obfuscation.
Award of Damages
The records42 reveal that Bautista was 36 years old at the time of his death and not 26 years old
as stated by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.43 Moreover, the annual salary of Bautista
at the time of his death was already P60,864 and not P60,600.44 We likewise modify the formula
applied by the Court of Appeals in the computation of the award for loss of earning capacity. In
accordance with current jurisprudence,45 the formula for the indemnification for loss of earning
capacity is:
Net Earning = Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual – Living Expenses]
Capacity Income (GAI)
= 2/3(80 – age of deceased) x (GAI – 50% of GAI)
Using this formula, the indemnification for loss of earning capacity should be:
Net Earning Capacity = 2/3 (80 – 36) x [P60,864 – (50% x P60,864)]
= 29.33 x P30,432
= P892,570.56
With regard to actual damages, the records show that not all the expenses that the Bautista family
allegedly incurred were supported by competent evidence. Editha failed to present receipts or
5

J. 2000. until he fell to the ground. Dr. Then. 2002. November 16.. and feloniously. August 30. 13-14. and Miguel Lumasac were drinking gin in the hut of Crisanto 1. in Criminal Case stabbing him with a bladed weapon locally known as kolonyal at the different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal stab No. 2004 November 20. and use personal violence upon the person of one Leon Lumasac by then and there the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler. CHICO- NAZARIO. pp. EXEQUIEL SENOJA. Exequiel Senoja. Philippines. G. Uy issued a medico-legal report PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.SECOND DIVISION TSN. Branch 96. On April 16. 1998. examined the cadaver of Leon and found multiple lesions on his Promulgated: body and five fatal wounds on his chest.R. Aurora.. 2259.: with homicide. 3-5. 1997. On April 16. Petitioner and Jose tried to pacify Leon. petitioner ran towards the barangay road AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. August 30. petitioner Exequiel Senoja. TSN. looking for his brother Miguel. petitioner stabbed Leon Present: at the back. willfully. 1997 at around 11 oclock in the morning in Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) Barangay Zarah. on the spot (pp. Jose Calica. p. Then. and death certificate (Exhibits A and B. 3. p. petitioner. 26564. San Luis Municipal Health Officer. SR. Aurora. CONTRARY TO LAW. Respondent. pp. When Leon turned around. 2. 2-6. CR No. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Aurora. November 22. March 14. 160341 2. Chairman. did then and there. 1998. wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter. 2001. Dr. San Luis. Fidel Senoja. CA Decision). TSN. Suddenly. Pura Deveza Valenzuela-Uy. attack. Crisanto Reguyal in Barangay Zarah. 2-4. in People v. October 19. petitioner continued stabbing him PUNO. TSN. TSN. Fidel Senoja. San Luis. The latter died .[4] The Case For the People The petitioner admitted killing the victim but invoked the affirmative defense of self- As culled by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in its comment on the petition. Jose Calica. p. TSN. TSN. J. with intent to kill. an Information was filed charging petitioner Exequiel Senoja CALLEJO. TINGA. affirming with modification unlawfully. Miguel Lumasac. pp. His version of the fatal incident is set forth in his petition at bar: the case stemmed from the following: 1. An angry Leon Lumasac Reguyal. 5. SR. 1997. JJ.versus . 1997). 2002. CA Decision). and p. But drinking gin. and threw away the kolonial knife he used in stabbing Leon. about ten meters from the hut. San Luis. for homicide. 1997 at about 11 oclock in the morning.. 6 . Leon and petitioner talked things out and later reconciled (pp. the latter tried to hack him so he embraced Leon and Jose took Leons bolo. Subsequently. holding a bolo in his right hand and were in the hut of Crisanto Reguyal in Barangay Zarah. 2. p. 2-4. Records. No. Leon walked out of Crisantos hut followed by Petitioner.[3] x--------------------------------------------------x DECISION On August 13. the accusatory portion of which reads: That on April 16. Aurora. defense.R. docketed as CA-G. 5. assault. when petitioner approached Leon. the said accused. April 21. 3. and Exequiel Senoja suddenly arrived at the said place.CALLEJO.

of civil indemnity. Court.00) by way tried to hack Exequiel Senoja.[6] gave an opportunity to disarm the duo. WHEREFORE. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 1 trying to pacify Leon Lumasac. the former suddenly and treacherously hacked the latter treacherously hit at the left buttock and as he turned around to face the at the left side of his head and right thigh. Exequiel Homicide for the death of victim Leon Lumasac and hereby sentences him. inflicting upon him multiple drawn. It 11. would probably alter the result of this case on appeal finding appellants plea of self-defense credible. Exequiel Senoja with a knife then went outside and tried to months of reclusion temporal as maximum. Jose Calica gave his own bolo with a sabbard to The Honorable Court of Appeals failed to appreciate vital facts replace the bolo of Leon which he threw away. finding him Lumasac. this Court finds accused Exequiel Senoja GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of 4. Unable to evade the treacherous attack by Leon Lumasac who to retaliate and inflict those wounds upon the aggressor. of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 6. After a while. with modification. if considered. After walking for about 10 meters away from the hut. Miguel Lumasac was no longer inside the hut but fetching water. Inside the hut. the petitioner appealed the decision to the CA which rendered judgment so they invited him to get inside the hut. Jose Calicas bolo which was secured by its scabbard. Lumasac brandished and executed several hacking blows against Exequiel Senoja before he was stabbed. neutralized and finished by the latter. after the assailant poked the victim at the left side of the buttock with the use of the colonial knife he stabbed him successively until he fell down dead. Time element was the essence of this encounter which. Miguel On June 7. Miguel. the trial court rendered judgment against the petitioner. premises considered. This did not give a chance to the victim 12. (a) to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) 5. angrily demanding for his brother. it would be impossible for the victim to use it in wounds which caused his death.[7] 9. petitioner. The petitioner now seeks relief from this by Exequiel Senoja who held Leons hands. Unless earlier and stabbed Leon Lumasac in self-defense. The petitioner faults the CA for its analysis of his testimony. To avoid any injury. how could Exequiel Senoja suffered (sic) those hacking (sic) 7 . The victim used persisted in his criminal design. (b) to pay the heirs of the pacify Leon Lumasac but the latter angered by the gestures of the former victim the amount of Fifteen (sic) Thousand Pesos (Php 50.000. the decision of the RTC. whom he suspected of drying up the ricefield he was plowing. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. the latter stabbed him successively and without let-up hitting him 9 times resulting in 9 fatal wounds. 7. Jose Calica got the bolo of Leon and threw it away while Fidel Senoja took the colonial knife of Exequiel. The fallo of the decision reads: 3. To prevent Leon Lumasac from entering the hut. Leon Lumasac tried to box Fidel Senoja for siding with his brother. as follows: The injuries suffered by the petitioner at the left side of his head 10. Leon Lumasac left but returned and angrily demanded for his bolo. 2. 2002. which. but was prevented affirming. With Jose Calicas bolo in him. Leon and right thigh was confirmed by Dr. The Lumasac turned around and saw Exequiel Senoja on his way home relative positions of the wounds clearly show that the drunken Leon following him. contending that: 8. Under these circumstances. Leon Lumasac suddenly arrived holding a bolo and hacked the doorpost of Crisantos hut. Exequiel Senoja embraced Leon which SO ORDERED. Exequiel Senoja drew his colonial knife Mr. At this time. Senoja (appellant) and Jose Calica stood by the door while simultaneously applying Article 64. and (c) to pay the costs. as narrated by the Honorable Court. Jose Calica and Fidel Senoja were able to pacify Leon Lumasac In due course.[5] defending himself from the surprise attack and stabbing at a lightning fashion inflicting nine (9) fatal wounds. Leon Lumasac left but only after leaving a threat that something will happen to Exequiel Senoja for siding with his brother. Leon Lumasac walked back to meet Exequiel Senoja and would be physically and highly improbable for the victim if he was upon reaching him. Rodolfo Eligio in open court.

ART. complete or directed to his brother Miguel who was not inside the hut anymore. It is complete As seen from appellants testimony. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent the witness stand. it is essential the kolonial knife he was holding. the Leons aggression against the appellant and Fidel Senoja ceased since. provided was with the brother of the victim. what titillates our imagination is the fact that Miguel Lumasac. it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. self-defense hacked him (with Calicas bolo) inflicting wounds on the left side of his head and his right thigh. In fine. then approached and however. Leon turned around to face him saying if youre not only my godson in a threatening way. his aggression had already ceased. Like alibi. But incomplete. That appellant suffered such injuries was corroborated by the testimony of Dr. there was no pre-existing grudge between these families. On the contrary. when he was presented to Second. Leon was pacified. Miguel Lumasac could have told the real truth that Senoja Third. profounded by the prosecutors if he wanted the petitioner to be imprisoned. Miguel Lumasac. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person murdered his brother. Hence.wounds inflicted by the victim using Calicas bolo? In all indications. necessity justifies the invasion of a right. The second on the part of the victim and any of the two essential requisites were present. who was then First. a perceptible difference between necessity and self-defense. Leon was the aggressor but his aggression was mostly aggression on the part of the victim is a condition sine qua non to self-defense. of the Revised Penal Code provides: himself. therefore. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights. 11. as appellant testified. The right of self-defense proceeds from necessity and limited by it.[8] defending himself. Justifying circumstances. Whether or not the accused acted in self-defense is a question of fact. which only shows that that the following circumstances concur. told Leon Huwag po. And still. Unlawful aggression. [12] 8 .[11] There is. Huwag po. On that same occasion. when Leon left the hut to go home. when Leon entered Crisanto Reguyals hut. as experience has demonstrated. it was Leon Lumasac who was the aggressor both in the first and second phases of the incident and Exequiel Senoja was compelled to defend Paragraph 1. unlawful phase was when Leon left to go home.[9] to self-defense that it should be a defense against a present unlawful attack. In phase one where Leon entered Reguyals hut. he was two meters outside the hut. The following do not incur A closer scrutiny of the attending circumstances which resulted any criminal liability: in this stabbing incident shows that Exequiel Senoja has no compelling reasons to kill his godfather. based on the evidence on record: The affirmative defense of self-defense may be complete or incomplete. The right begins It is uncontroverted that the appellant followed the victim when the latter went out of the hut to go home. up to the time he and the appellant reconciled. Rodolfo Eligio.[10] In the second phase. Appellants testimony is that when where necessity does. he was very evasive in answering the questions or repel it. Clearly. Leon Lumasacs actions can when all the three essential requisites are present. which is that. when Leon tried to box Fidel Senoja and he (appellant) affirmative defense of self-defense is inherently weak because. it is incomplete if only unlawful aggression be divided into two (2) phases: the first phase. and ends where it ends. Mr. Exequiel Senoja 1. although it was also partly directed at the appellant and even at Fidel Soneja (sic). with the group drinking gin at the hut of Crisanto Reguyal did not clearly impute this crime to petitioner. The CA declared that. considering that he was older than Exequiel Senoja and drunk. he (appellant) attacked the victim with excuses the repulse of a wrong. thus. it was Leon Lumasac who attacked his adversary first but lost in the duel The petition is denied. Article 11.

[22] He also stabbed the victim on the left buttock. the mens sit rea. hence. Forthwith. who was armed with himself is confronted by a real and imminent peril to his life or limb? We rule that the test should a knife. Hence. When the danger is over. Because he had thrown away the victims bolo. in due exercise of his reason.[15] back the knife to the petitioner. whom he was But then what is the standard to use to determine whether the person defending angry at. The victim attempted to hack the petitioner.[20] aggression. [16] Hence.[14] a bolo. there is no necessity to take the killing of the victim Leon Lumasac. the petitioner followed the victim. The second incident took place when the victim demanded that Calica return Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual. May inceptual/unlawful aggression ceases to exist. indeed. tried to pacify the victim. unexpected attack or imminent his bolo as he wanted to go home already. as gleaned. Calica danger thereof. As it was. it is right and him to defend himself. sudden. The petitioner could not recall how many times he stabbed the victim and When the accused offers the affirmative defense of self-defense. Believing that the victim would attack right of self-defense ceases. he cannot punish when the danger or peril is over. not merely imaginary. who was armed with life or inflict injuries on another. nisi victim and threw it away. Absent such an actual were two separate but interrelated incidents that culminated in the petitioners stabbing and or imminent peril to ones life or limb. on his person. Fidel Senoja took the petitioners knife. His right is defense. when necessary for the preservation of to prove. The conflict for blood should be avoided if possible. Kung hindi lang kita inaanak.[18] An assault and told the petitioner. Jose Calica took the bolo of the is in danger? After all. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on not a crime. not retribution.[21] Fidel even gave reasonably appear to him. not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. he thereby admits what parts of the latters body had been hit. looking for his brother Miguel Lumasac. The victim hacked the wall of the house in anger. when an was. the hitting the latter on the left side of his head and thigh. one is not justified in following up gone about ten meters from the hut. that he killed the victim or inflicted injuries on the life on the party setting up the plea.[13] There is a need for one. the person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on his life and limb. thus. When the victim had already injure the former aggressor. the guilt of the accused must depend upon the circumstances as they victim was already pacified. and the We agree with the CA that. Life can be taken under the plea of necessity. killing the victim or inflicting injuries on him.[19] him anew. the one making a defense has no right to kill or mangyayari sa iyo. kung hindi ngayon. in the hut of Crisanto Reguyal. the petitioner stabbed the victim frontally several times. the rule of law founded on justice and reason: Actus no facit remin. The victim turned around his adversary to take his life. with clear and convincing evidence. there is nothing to repel. for it is a natural right for one to defend oneself the weakness of that of the prosecution because if the evidence of the prosecution were weak. The first was the arrival of the victim. nevertheless. and left the hut. there peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual. his life or limb latter embraced and managed to pacify the victim. when confronted by an unlawful aggression by another. even from the testimony of the petitioner. The petitioner. Self-defense is an act to save life. impelled to give his own. The victim then warned the petitioner three times.[17] After the danger has passed. He and the petitioner were already reconciled. The victim then hacked the petitioner. It is a settled rule that to constitute the accused can no longer be acquitted. the be: does the person invoking the defense believe. bukas. The burden of evidence is shifted on the accused 9 . For his part.

if not conclusive effect. Pura Uy. I think the victim and the assailant were facing (+) stab wound 1 inch to the right of the anterior median line at the level of each other. completely soaked with fresh blood. (+) stab wound 1 inch above the L nipple 4 inches deep running Q In your expert opinion. The findings of fact of the trial court and its conclusions based on the said survived even with medical attention. the funeral parlor which attended the victim has called my attention because of the Second. (+) stab wound 2 inches below the L nipple 4 inches deep running medially to the anterior median line.[25] After the doctor made her initial autopsy and submitted findings are accorded by this Court high respect. however. that is located at the back of the victim? A I forgot to tell you that a day after I submitted the report. if there is one amont (sic) these lesions court and its conclusions based thereon. The second episode commenced inside the hut and continued blood vessels. A Based on my examination. This Q In this medico-legal report. is it not fatal? (+) stab wound 2 inches to the L of the anterior median line at the level of A It is not that fatal. chest. Uy. is inapplicable if the trial court ignored. will alter or reverse the outcome of the case. The victim sustained six hack wounds and one lacerated wound. (+) stab wound at the level of the L nipple L anterior axillary line 4 inches The first episode inside the hut had been completed with the protagonist. at close range. overlooked. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court of having been buttock. A Five fatal stab wounds on the chest. about two inches deep. a stab wound on the left buttock. you indicated that the cause of death of the victim is Hypovolemic shock 2 to multiple stab wounds. (+) stab wound inch to the right of the anterior median line at the level of Q How many fatal wounds have (sic) the victim sustained in his chest? the xyphoid process 3 inches deep running superiorly. Masyadong malapit. by the nature of the wound sustained by the inferomedially.[26] 10 . if considered. his clothing victim.[23] The trial and the appellate courts gave no credence and probative weight to the Five of the wounds of the victim on his chest were fatal. or misinterpreted cogent Will you please explain this? A Ito pong nakalagay o dahilan ng pagkamatay ng biktima sa sobrang facts and circumstances which. Q What is the nature of the injury? CHEST: A Stab wound.[24] The victim also sustained testimony of the petitioner. This is wound at the back of the victim and I attended immediately to see gleaned from the Necropsy Report of Dr. According to the doctor. the demeanor and behavior of the witnesses as they testify. (+) lacerated wound on the left palm almost cutting off the proximal outside. Q By the nature of the lesion. have reviewed the records and found no justification for a reversal of the findings of the trial Q Will you please tell us. rule. I reviewed for (sic) these lesions and I saw one lesion located at the left buttock of the FINDINGS: The victim lies in supine position. thus: able to observe. the second right intercostal space 0. especially when her report. in depth running superiorly to the left armpit. the victim. to wit: these lesions at the home of the victim. phalanx of the left thumb. So do we. Dr. stocky in built. and ended with the petitioner stabbing the victim several times. (+) hack wound at the left armpit 3 inches long injuring the muscles and the and the petitioner reconciled.5 inch in depth. she noted that the victim sustained a stab wound of about two inches deep at the left affirmed by the CA. what could have been the relative position of the victim in (+) stab wound 2 inches to the left of the anterior median line 4 inches deep relation to his assailant? running inferoposteriorly. it was unlikely for the victim to have First. We natapon na dugo gawa ng maraming saksak na tinamo ng biktima sa kanyang dibdib ang nagbigay ng daan sa kanyang kamatayan. victim. the L nipple 5 inches deep running posteriorly.

nature and location of the wounds sustained by the victim. kung hindi ngayon. was sharp. nevertheless. the petitioner insists that resolutely denied stabbing the victim at the buttock and insisted that he stabbed the victim without much ado. Sir. the victim walked towards the petitioner saying. thus. you actually saw Exequiel Senoja stabbing Leon Lumasac several times. followed the victim and left the hut after the victim had gone barely ten A I dont know. claim that the victim was armed with a bolo is hard to believe because he even failed to surrender Q So you are now changing your answer. The Q When Exequiel Senoja stabbed Leon Lumasac several times. The petitioner threw away his knife and failed to surrender it to the policemen. but hit Considering the number. Q After stabbing him several times and felt that he was already dead.[28] testimony that the victim stabbed the petitioner and that this impelled the latter to stab the former.[32] The petitioner was. after he was hack[ed] by Leon the bolo. it speaks more eloquently immediately died because of several stabs and lay (sic) down? A I did not see that scene because Exequiel Senoja stabbed Leon Lumasac. But the testimony of Dulay contradicted the testimony of the petitioner: The testimony of the petitioner is belied by the physical evidence on record. and hacked the latter on the left buttock. you Sixth. Q And that is the time when Exequiel Senoja stabbed Leon Lumasac? A I did not see the stabbing. The petitioners each other. Sir. The Q You also stabbed him in his left armpit? petitioner. What I only saw was that they were embracing neither did he inform the policemen that he killed the victim in self-defense. I turn (sic) back upon seeing Leon Lumasac hack Exequiel Senoja. Kung hindi lang kita inaanak. He should have waited until after the victim had already gone far from the hut before Q But you knew that you stabbed him in his buttock? A No. the victim. the victim was not the petitioners plea of self-defense is incredible. meters.[31] As gleaned from his statement. Third. The petitioners version of the events that transpired immediately before he stabbed the victim does not inspire belief. he immediately fell to the ground and was fatal[ly] wounded. Sir. Sir. Sir. settled rule is that physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. hit him on the head and on the thigh with his bolo. aware of the peril to his life if he followed the victim. He claims that when he saw the victim emerged from 11 . And yet. frontally: Fifth. the hut. May mangyayari sa iyo. bukas. because I am (sic) defending myself. before the victim uttered these words. I than a hundred witnesses. the latter even touched the blade of the bolo to see if it Q But you are admitting that you stabbed him several times frontally? A Yes. going home to avoid any untoward incident.[29] turn (sic) back because I was afraid then. you stabbed him again several times? the hut. The petitioner testified that shortly A That is not true. The petitioner presented his brother-in-law Ruben Dulay to corroborate his already left the place? A Yes. When I turn (sic) back I saw them embracing each other. the victim warned him three times before leaving Q As a matter of fact.[27] It bears stressing that the petitioner disposed. much less determined to assault the petitioner.[30] Lumasac? A I did not see that Exequiel Senoja stab Leon Lumasac. According to the petitioner. Sir. Sir. [33] Fourth. Sir. nevertheless. he sustained an injury at the back of his buttock (pigi) and when he faced you.

And the hack wound examination that the victim stabbed him while still inside the hut of Reguyal: on the temporal region is oblique. the petitioner and the victim had reconciled. who was 12 . Q How did it happen that you were able to kill the victim in this case Mr. Pros. after the said incident. nor buttress his plea that he acted in self- defense. A Yes. he was moderately drunk. The testimony of the petitioner that the victim stabbed him outside the hut on the left A I did not place it. Sir. Sir. the victim stabbed him frontally. But then. Q In what place did this incident happen? Leon Lumasac? A In the hut of Tata Santos. it is incredible that the victim himself. The bare fact that the petitioner sustained a five-centimeter wound at the left temporal A In the hut of Tata Santos. The Court rules in the negative. he hacked me. Q What is his real name? Q Were you hit by the hack made by the victim in this case? A Yes. The petitioner failed to inform the doctor that he sustained the wounds to defend If. following findings of the appellate court: The question that must be resolved is whether or not the victim Q Where else? was the unlawful aggressor as the appellants testimony pictures him to be. it is (sic) possible that these injuries were self-inflicted? Q Were you hit by the hack made by the victim in this case? A Probably. The doctor gave the petitioner due medications for 30 minutes and the petitioner then went Q Where else? home: A (His) right thigh. Moreover. Sir. Q Were the injuries only slight? A Yes. but I cannot comment on that. as claimed by the petitioner. Q In what place did this incident happen? Seventh. A Because when I went out. but I did not place it on the record. [34] And Witness is pointing to his left head. he hacked me. A Crisanto Reguyal. Sir. Ronquillo: Q Does (sic) the wound at the right anterior thigh vertical. Sir. you dont know? A It is vertical. Sir. Q You said that the patient was under the influence of alcohol? Would you Q Where? say that the patient was then so drunk at that time? A Here. The victim had already left the hut and was ten (10) meters away from it.[36] Q Where? A Here. A When I saw him at that time. Sir. Leon Lumasac? A Because when I went out. region and an eight-centimeter hack wound on the anterior portion of his right thigh does not Q What is his real name? A Crisanto Reguyal.[35] preclude the fact that he was the unlawful aggressor. There is no showing that the victim. Sir. Sir. Q So. diagonal or what? Eighth. A (His) right thigh. Sir. Q How did it happen that you were able to kill the victim in this case Mr. Sir. Sir. side of his head and the anterior portion of his right thigh is belied by his testimony on direct Q So. Sir. Sir. the doctor testified that the wounds the petitioner sustained were slight: was able to hack the anterior part of his right thigh. We agree with the And Witness is pointing to his left head.

it was to pacify Leon and the second reason was that he was going home. was aware that appellant was following him. smarting from the earlier incident in the hut where Leon told him hindi ka tatagal. drunk. kung hindi ngayon. As for appellants injuries. It is the well-considered finding of this Court that while Leon Lumasac had ceased being the aggressor after he left the hut to go home. accused Exequiel Senoja was now the unlawful aggressor in this second phase of their confrontation. sa loob ng tatlong araw mayroong mangyayari sa iyo. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: 13 . successively stabbed and hacked the victim in the armpit and chest until he fell. CALLEJO. a defensive wound. In all. the victim suffered nine (9) wounds. he had stopped being an aggressor. It is clear that at that point in time. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. it is clear that they were sustained in the course of the victims attempt to defend himself as shown by the lacerated wound on the victims left palm. First. and when the latter turned around. the petition is DENIED. SR. It bears mentioning that appellant contradicted himself with respect for (sic) the reason why he left the hut. It was the appellant who. Appellant stabbed or poked the victim in the left buttock resulting in the non-fatal wound. the victim was simply walking toward his home. ROMEO J. or that the appellant called out to him so that he (the victim) had to turn around and notice him. wanted a confrontation. bukas repeated three times. SO ORDERED. [37] IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING.

the victim was declared dead on in the basketball court. On her way to the hardcourt. Even on the 4:00 P. Luzviminda called for her mother at their probabilities who of the participants in a fight had. party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. additionally testified that while he was walking on the instant case. it is necessary that one be A motion for reconsideration filed by appellant was denied on August 26. judgment was forced him to inflict more or less severe wounds upon his assailant. In He took the fork from Jaime and advised appellant to go home. saying: "Mother. J. and not only in the basketball court.000. thus plus the additional amounts of P4. but a prudent man overlooks an insult. without mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor. come! commence the aggression. intervened. employing therefor rendered by the trial court convicting him of murder. and in not appreciating the discharged against him. 3 Long has it been accepted that for the right of defense to exist. 6 It is an old but a respected and consistent rule that courts must determine by a balance of Finding that her father was too heavy for her to carry. otherwise conviction would follow from his admission that he killed the victim.00 and P2. Appellant then fled from the crime scene. however. No.R. that the manner.00. arrival. if not insulted. the victim. 4 hence this appellate review wherein appellant contends.00 representing the funeral expenses for absolving him from criminal liability. while already in front of his house. or at least that he be threatened with an attack in an immediate merit. appellant was watching a basketball game.G. to fetch her father. In retaliation." Her mother immediately called for a tricycle provocation tried to strangle him and poked a fork against his neck. plaintiff-appellee. This fact. we find this an opportune occasion to emphasize that retaliation is by the neck with one arm and. thereby shifting the burden of evidence to him and the onus of which he Aquilino P. anchored mainly on the testimony of Luzviminda Ballesteros. as a justifying circumstance. as. brandishing a knife with which to stab him or pointing a gun to be lower court blundered in disregarding his claim of self-defense. the victim also managed to run but stumbled and fell to the ground. is that there was an he would not have found himself charged with murder for allegedly stabbing to death one Jaime unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. he chanced upon Jaime attacking appellant with It will be recalled that. for example. slight physical injuries on another. for even if that was weak. said Luzviminda was playing with her siblings at home. an uncle of appellant. 1994 ensued between them. held the latter evidently a retaliation. the burden of proof is. poking a fork against it with the other different from an act of self-defense.300. in his assigned errors. appellant was able to parry the stabbing blow and a struggle place in front of his house. however. Jaime attacked the former. It must be positively shown that there Ballesteros in San Fabian. in front of so many people and rushed Jaime to the Provincial Hospital where. Suddenly.M. 1990. of course. the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the later by Jaime. without any intention to inflict other injuries. A different account of the incident was presented by the defense. strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. thus allowing appellant to been the circumstance that Jaime persisted in his design to attack appellant while the latter was stab him on the right chest just below the nipple. as claimed by appellant. 7 and this fact undoubtedly fired him with a desire to get even with the deceased. the reason to house. 14 then he must necessarily have been deeply offended. Jaime Ballesteros. Barangay Tanod Romeo Decena who was also watching the basketball game. the a game in the basketball court. prompting Luzviminda to warn her father to run for safety by shouting in the continuation of the unlawful aggression which could have justified self-defense would have vernacular "Batik kila. 1991. Jaime simply raised his hand. 9 Furthermore.M. victim and thrusting the knife into the latter's body.: evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. 10 herein accused-appellant George Decena reflected upon and hearkened to this biblical precept. in the natural order of things. Consequently. On September 20. 5 circumstances presuppose an unlawful aggression. 12 So indispensable is unlawful aggression in self-defense that. And.. and continued thereafter. the barangay road of Longos-Patalan. with costs. however. is whether or perpetua. Tatay!" Instead. accused-appellant. invokes self-defense. on the prosecution which must rely on the GEORGE DECENA y ROCABERTE. for no apparent reason. Bolinas for accused-appellant. at the same time. walking in a wobbly manner due to drunkenness. the defense ruefully failed to establish. where Jaime allegedly tried to attack him with a balisong. It was claimed that at about The case at bar calls to mind the scenario and logical view that when a person had inflicted 4:00 P. 107874 August 4. 2 was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the life of the accused in danger and Appellant thereafter stood trial on a plea of not guilty. 1 Had be disbelieved after appellant himself admitted the killing. Pangasinan on — of all dates — December 25. To support his theory of continuing aggression. home in an intoxicated state. it follows that her mother. 8 vs. 13 When appellant claimed that Jaime suddenly and without any My father has been stabbed by George Decena. 15 We find these observations apropos to the situation presented by Fernando Biala. Jaime Ballesteros. he claims. The supposed bladed weapon. at around the victim tried to poke a fork on the neck of appellant. Luzviminda met her father walking unlawful aggression had ended. appellant must this time rely on the strength of his own REGALADO.500. and the latter went around the basketball court. The basic requirement for self-defense. the aggression that was begun by the injured arm. is to the effect that on Christmas Day of 1990. person making a defense. Teresita Ballesteros. since unlawful aggression no longer existed. who was then watching when appellant and Jaime heeded the advice of the barangay tanod for them to go home. Appellant overpowered Jaime and succeeded in twisting the wrist of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. not appellant acted in complete self-defense in killing Jaime Ballesteros. when 14-year old daughter of the victim. it cannot It is said that a fool shows his annoyance at once. she saw appellant rushing towards her father with a long appellant had no right whatsoever to kill or even wound the former aggressor. She recalled being asked by elementary rule that when the aggressor leaves. In criminal cases. therefore. Fortunately. appellant alleged 14 . granting arguendo that he is it. the unlawful aggression complained of also took a balisong. as claimed. The latter left and was followed self-defense. and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P50. The attack made was stopped near the place where appellant was sitting and. The victim. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. must satisfactorily discharge. there is no occasion to speak of the other two requisites for such a defense because both guilty. which was only fifteen meters away from the scene of the crime. the unlawful aggression ceases. of that day. 1992 for lack of assaulted or that he be attacked. imposing on him the penalty of reclusion reasonable means to resist said attack. 11 The primal issue in this case. a The theory of the defense is that the unlawful aggression started in the basketball court. Herein appellant. the one making the attack was an unlawful aggressor. The case for the prosecution.

On the other hand. Pfc/PNP. elements of this station proceeded to Barangay We. There was no showing that appellant deliberately intended would readily admit the killing at the earliest opportunity if he were legally and morally justified to insult the age of Jaime. to Diagan. in the Diagan allegedly owned by the victim. Romeo Diagan that he was not at fault for the death of Jaime was that he was terribly afraid attack was sudden. However. appellant caught the hand of Jaime "squeezed and his concurrence. A belated plea or denial suggests that it is false and only an afterthought made as a criminal liability. such record in their barangay 16 and. they may be expected to cover up for the crime. could not be said for the defense witnesses who are all relatives of of the trial court which is better circumstanced because of its direct role in the reception of the appellant. It is true that the Sgt. Under follow-up. Under the environmental circumstances hereinbefore he never went out of his house. know the difference between a fork and a knife. 173 of the related. One deformed indubitably as the crime itself. he would look for trouble. is the matter of the her natural interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter her from implicating credibility of their respective witnesses. 18 After examining and evaluating the conflicting versions of the the accused and his witnesses is not necessarily detrimental to the former's line of defense. this witness categorically admitted that even as he was still going up the road. Strangely. was simple homicide. appreciated. he was not necessarily old. Romeo pushed it forward and Jaime Ballesteros hit himself. who had thereby no opportunity to concoct or contrive a story.that whenever the victim was drunk. This is contradicted by the unchallenged Entry No. the Court has heretofore noted that a righteous individual will not cower but disregard of age are not persuasive. therefore. Accordingly. When asked offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in authority. that they are neighbors. her said testimony was never refuted nor Appellant declared that he is related to the victim's wife. early in the morning after the incident and before he could actually be arrested. the to prove this hypothesis. as posited by the culprit himself. considering that the latter was decidedly stronger than him. he vaguely answered that he could not tell because when he went (c) the surrender was voluntary. 20 the execution thereof which tended directly and especially to insure its execution. We believe that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary up the road. That 15 . and that there objected to by appellant. inebriated and that he was staggering or wobbling as he walked. we agree with the court a quo that the prosecution's account is relationship. Having been given shortly after a startling occurrence took place before the eyes of Luzviminda. it could not be expected that he would likewise not just indiscriminately and improvidently point her finger at anybody but to the muster enough courage to persist in attacking and attempting to kill appellant. and further reinforcing the case for the People. Ricardo language of the law. without risk Third. 24 This was apparently to bolster his theory that he had no motive to assault the victim. Appellant's smug excuse for not immediately divulging to to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. that statement has all the 1990 and until his surrender early next morning. especially its follow-up entry which the court below quoted in its decision: veracity. methods or forms in Abrio. however. earmarks of the truth of what she said. R. testified that a fork was poked at his neck but. However. Second. Sgd. the other half of the story was deliberately not narrated. 26 of the defense witnesses. The records disclose that appellant was. but that fact per se does not bespeak the circumstance of alevosia. 30 In the case at bar. it is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance. was no grudge between him and the victim. Fernando Biala. nor was incident. we note grave inconsistencies in the declarations yields the conclusion that their testimonies lack credibility. Appellant insisted that after the stabbing incident in the late afternoon of December 25. In contrast. the wife of the victim testified that the latter has no supposed combatants were already fighting and that fight actually lasted only a few seconds. in his direct examination. deserving of more credence. in view of the conflicting submissions of the parties. 22 victim is an old man. On the contrary. but shock and surprise allegedly prevented him from going near Jaime or appellant. appellant must identification of the culprit were unrehearsed and spontaneously made at the spur of the moment. 21 Be The reasons advanced by the lower court for appreciating the aggravating circumstance of that as it may." 23This is a mercurial account since. While relationship between testimonial evidence. this prosecution and the defense. we are constrained to once again advert persons other than the culprits. Relative entry no. 28 It is to do so. other than that the last ditch effort to avoid the consequences of the crime. it easily passes the tests not only of admissibility in evidence but also of weight in its local police blotter. Again. 27 Here. He avowed that he saw the stabbing the fact that while the victim was forty-three years of age. evidently with Jaime was about to deliver the stabbing blow.B. he said that he The rule is that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may properly be appreciated merely chanced on them at the time when Jaime was already actually stabbingappellant. and how long the fight transpired. 25 This to the jurisprudential rule that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is within the province observation. the defense utterly failed repeat. a basketball game. 17 If he had such difficulty even His assertions. there a radical disparity between his age and that of appellant who was twenty-five years old. nor with any member of the family of the Witnesses for and against the appellant testified that throughout the incident Jaime was latter. however. however. when he saw Jaime about to stab appellant. reject the trial court's holding that the killing of the victim was attended by Longos this town to locate the suspect and returned station with the treachery. the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be fork submitted by the father of the suspect Francisco Decena to Sgt. Any circumstance which would qualify a killing to murder must be proven as information that said suspect fled after the incident. aside from impresses us as either an imaginative or a coached witness. showing insult or disregard of age in order that it may be considered as an Fourth. defense. this was not his demeanor and attitude when he boldly professed further required that the means. for otherwise the latter would thereby gain immunity. accompanied and surrendered by his father to a person in authority. the two were already fighting. 173. he vacillated and testified that it was a knife instead. for the if the following requisites concur: (a) the offender had not actually been arrested. is the fact that when Luzviminda First. on cross-examination. "Mother. appellant committed the crime by employing means. come! My father has been stabbed by George Decena. he again vacillated by saying that when surrender may be awarded to appellant. on shouted. significantly. that consideration does not obtain. Appellant. That the principal witness is the victim's daughter even lends more credence to her testimony as Essentially involved. aggravating circumstance. 29 The crime committed. We hold that for this circumstance to constitute an aggravation of in doing so. taken together with the want of logic (of) in the declarations of said witnesses. (b) the reason that he did not see where appellant or Jaime came from before the incident. The supposed eyewitness of the defense who is appellant's uncle. Parenthetically. however. Sgt. in order to obtain justice for the death of her father. for none of the prosecution's arguments can uphold its allegation that.19 Surely. methods or forms were deliberated upon or consciously adopted and contended that it was Jaime who first poked a fork against his neck while he was watching by the offender. As such. work both ways for it also established the fact that Luzviminda would in performing the normal bodily function of locomotion." that outcry and the cross-examination.

therefore.mitigating circumstance can. In all other respects. to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal. as maximum. 16 . and imposing upon him an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years of prision mayor. be properly considered in his favor to impose the penalty in its minimum period. the said judgment is hereby AFFIRMED. the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby MODIFIED by finding accused-appellant George Decena y Rocaberte guilty of the crime of homicide. as minimum. WHEREFORE.

to which he pled not guilty when Unmoved by the claim of self-defense invoked by the accused. willfully. After a few minutes police officers gun at him. bereft of factual and legal justification.but most importantly. San Antonio and appellant were resting requires that there be (1) an unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed by the offender. Appellant immediately closed the door while Macapagal continued banging at it. When threatening or intimidating attitude[8].[1] income. They were found in the upper jaw of the left side of the face. Jun Concepcion. the trial court pronounced arraigned. Republic of the WHEREFORE. was able to prevent at this stage harm to himself by promptly closing the door. personal violence upon the person of one DANIEL MACAPAGAL. Instead. 1996. 128359. [2] Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition with Homicide. upon opening the door and seeing the victim pointing a Appellant told San Antonio to call the police on the phone.[7] seemed to be looking for something or somebody as Macapagal walked passed San Antonio and Here. He arrived at the scene. unlawfully and feloniously attack. likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs the use of an unlicensed Caliber .: had one magazine loaded with twelve (12) live ammunition but an examination of the gun showed that its chamber was not loaded. San Antonio met them on the door and appellant was by then sitting. December 6. again 17 . The information charging the accused with the offense. He then went to the close bedroom where the claim of self-defense. Appellant told the police that he shot Macapagal in self-defense and went with them to the police station. 1996). as lover and live-in partner. would presuppose an actual.Appellant then opened the door but he was greeted by Macapagals gun which was pointed sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere at him. the Court scarcely finds reversible error on the part of the trial court in rejecting the inspected the two opened bedrooms of the house. thereby of the deceased victim in the sum of P50. dated 27 November 1996. When self-defense is invoked. door. widower.000. appellant. did then and there. and he is hereby sentenced to suffer death.00. he yelled. Jr. accused-appellant. He conditions must concur.[4] Having owned the killing of the victim.38 snub nose firearm. a primordial element of self-defense. He stood up to pick his . the victim barged into the house of accused-appellant revolver. the abovenamed accused. however. had no license therefore. the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that The victm Daniel Macapagal. [5] He must discharge 27. with Serial No. the accused Ma. those that did not penetrate a vital organ of the human body. July 6. That on or about the 27th day of May. and the sum of P2. he was himself armed with a . an otherwise felonious deed Valino District. Self-defense At around 6:00 oclock in the evening on May 27. Unlawful aggression. below the left shoulder and the right side of the waist. Ibid. Senior Medical Officer of the Cabanatuan City General Hospital.38 caliber was taken against the aggressor. 1996.38 caliber revolver.38 caliber revolver he used. which has sentenced to death Roberto E. read: a judgment of guilt and handed a death sentence. to pay actual damages in the sum of P65.[G. despite San Antonios refusal to let him in.38 caliber revolver which he surrendered to SPO3 Felix Castro. appellant was and banged at the door with his gun while yelling Come out. 2000] gun. TSN.865. assault and use Firearm and Ammunition with Homicide. Another DECISION gunshot wound on the left side of the chest penetrated the heart and killed Macapagal instantly. at the time the defensive action appellant again opened the door moments later. plaintiff-appellee. by shooting the latter with Sec. appellant and San Antonio were living in a house being rented by San Antonio at 094 this burden by clear and convincing evidence.00 representing loss of death. True. taking his . Accused-appellant. which is penalized under Presidential Decree 1866. a married man. of the Regional Trial Macapagal had a license to carry said firearm. A few moments and his live-in partner and. had been a live-in partner of prosecution witness the killing has been legally justified. San Antonio opened the front door and she was confronted by Macapagal who made his and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The two at that instant immediately grappled for each others firearm. performed an autopsy on the cadaver of Macapagal and submitted a report thereon (Exhibit H). It VITUG. come out. Come out (p. Dr. 2-3. When successful. Macapagal fell dead on the floor. vs. ROBERTO E. later shots were heard. 4. which caused also his representing burial and interment expenses. No. They saw the dead body of Macapagal slumped on the floor holding a could have stopped there. Magsaysay Norte. would be excused mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent of the accused. Cabanatuan City (pp. in the City of Cabanatuan. [6] All these way inside the house holding a gun in his hand. At the time of the incident on May the might be able to rightly avail himself of the extenuating circumstance. DELA Macapagal sustained four (4) gunshot wounds.000. 1996. with DELA CRUZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of intent to kill.600.00 inflicting upon him gunshot wounds on different parts of his body. de la Cruz for ownership of the . J. the Court finds and so declares the accused ROBERTO Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. For automatic review is the decision. Luz Perla San Antonio for about two to three years before San Antonio took appellant should be able to prove to the satisfaction of the court the elements of self-defense in order that Roberto de la Cruz. Three of the wounds were non-penetrating or CRUZ. banging at the master bedroom door with his firearm.). of Cabanatuan City. It was later found by the police that the firearm used by Macapagal was a 9mm caliber pistol. in their bedroom when they heard a car stop in front of their house and later knocks on their (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that unlawful aggression. premises considered.[3] The facts relied upon by the trial court in its judgment were narrated by the Office of the In his plea to this Court. accused-appellant submits that the decision of the court a quo is Solicitor General in the Peoples brief. accused-appellant. On the other hand. he is. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 120958. who denied Court. 1.R. Branch 27.

00 himself. The trial court has erred. 1866 is already amended by Republic Act No. [16] The second element of self-defense would demand that the means employed to quell the The aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm being effectively offset by unlawful aggression were reasonable and necessary. Law.00 all the while been kept in the house of accused-appellant and his live-in partner. Income (50% of gross The elements of illegal possession of firearm are (1) the existence of the subject firearm.00] Accused-appellant claims that he did not have animus possidendi in the use and 3 possession of the .[10] The autopsy report would show that the victim sustained four gunshot wounds prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in the crime of homicide.expenses could no longer correctly argue that there utterly was no provocation on his part.. with a gross monthly income of P9. he instructed his live-in partner 18 . annual income) (2) the ownership or possession of the firearm. instead of merely taking precautionary Gross less living measures against. finally. anywhere in its range of from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) 3.00 awarded by the trial court as damages for loss of earning the heart (through-through) anterior then posterior then (L) hemidia prhagm and stomach. At to call the police and report the incident. When accused-appellant. Immediately following the shooting incident.600. however. The award of P2. of the amendatory law provides that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm.[18] Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code defense. Gunshot wound on the anterior chest (L) mid-clavicular line. sir.432.700. from fourteen (14) years.59. and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) 2.432. Section 1. i. an aggravating circumstance that is offset by the mitigating circumstance Q: Did you ask Candy why she was in possession of that gun? of voluntary surrender. on the earning capacity of her husband Daniel Macapagal sufficiently established the basis for making possible such an award. scapular area as point to exit (through-through). and there would be no need to still belabor the matter. while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree.38 caliber revolver since he has used it for just a fleeting moment to defend x = 24 x 59. and (3) the absence of the corresponding license or therefor. if you know? preventive detention if they have agreed voluntarily and in writing to abide the same disciplinary A: She also told me that we can use that gun for protection.00. the It would be essential.[13] x = 2(80-44)X[119. In other respects.600. sir.opened the bedroom door and. in imposing the death penalty on accused- appellant. Presidential Decree No. brandishing his own firearm. sir.[19] The deceased was 44 years old at the time of his death in 1996.He waited for the arrival of the authorities and readily this encounter. In the service of his sentence. the victim with his own gun he had taken from the cabinet. such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. sir. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence 1.400.950.800. in fact. the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.e. The provision is clear. accused-appellant would be quite hardput to still claim self-defense. accused-appellant Net earning capacity (x) = life expectancy x annual . years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to sixteen (16) years and one (1) day Q: And what was her reply as to who owns that gun? of reclusion temporal as maximum. is prision mayor.[12] American Expectancy Table of Mortality adopted in several cases[21] decided by this Court. customers at the Videoke. The testimony of the victims surviving spouse. This assertion is not supported by the evidence. indicate a determined effort to kill.00 for loss of earning is reduced A: According to her that firearm was used as payment by a group of persons who were her to P1. the subject revolver has x = P1. Macapagal. Marina Villa Juan 4. [20] In accordance with the which would. and he is accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of nine (9) A: Once I opened her drawer and I asked her who owns that gun.00 . opening the bedroom door the second time confronted. for self-defense to be aptly invoked that there be lack of loss of his earning capacity should be calculated thusly: sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. =========== appellant himself has thusly testified: WHEREFORE. the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Gunshot wound on the (L) shoulder as point of entry with trajectory toward the (L) supra. offense should be imposed in its medium period.865.[9] acknowledge before them his having been responsible for the shooting of the victim.865. level 5th ICS as point of entry years. third paragraph.800. Accused-appellant Q: When for the first time did you see that firearm inside the drawer of Candy? ROBERTO DELA CRUZ y ESGUERRA is hereby held guilty of HOMICIDE with the use of A: Since the last week of April. Gunshot wound on the abdomen side laterally as point of entry (+) for burned gun powder months. through-through. Apparently. the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal.[17] the penalty prescribed by law for the the deceased in this case would negate the existence of this indispensable component of self. which superficially with trajectory towards on the same side as point of exit. the decision appealed from is MODIFIED. accused-appellant shall be credited with the full time of his Q: And what else did Candy tell you about that firearm. an unlicensed firearm. forthwith confronted the victim. and capacity should be modified.[15] The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered in favor of accused-appellant. with trajectory towards the (L) flank as point of exit (through-through) Internally: penetrating The amount of P2. [14] rules imposed upon convicted prisoners pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. eight (8) months.700. Lacerated wound linear inch in length (L) cheek area[11] .00. The number of the wounds sustained by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. 8294. Accused.

Barrio lieutenant Casimiro Lozada.. "I place myself at your the stabbing of the deceased by defendant and appellant. as already stated above. to Lozada. and was necessarily mortal. Inside the chapel it was quite bright as there were electric lights. Amando Capina. In the morning of September 20. Upon observing From said judgment of conviction." Fearing that Amado's relatives might retaliate. awakened her parents and brought them to her side. in the sum of P2. the following Criminologists and courts of justice have entertained and upheld this view. a treasure. asking for represents the only true nobility. and waited for the arrival of the municipal authorities. however humble they may be. slapped Amado. Province of Laguna. women are permitted her from doing so. Amado came out from where he had hidden A beautiful woman is said to be a jewel. four months and one day of prision mayor to thirteen years. father and daughter went home and locked themselves up. and that on one occasion. and surreptitiously entered the room where she was sleeping. falsely boasting in the neighborhood of having taken liberties with her person and that she had Jose Ma. gave him fist blows and kicked him. On observing this highly improper and legitimate defense of her honor and that she should be completely absolved of all offensive conduct of Amado Capina. pulled out with her right hand the fan knife marked Exhibit B. that for sometime prior to sa aquin." Amado Capina died from the wound a few minutes the following facts: later. for the crime of murder. claimed — and sat by her right side.: afternoon of that same day." and answering him Avelina The evidence adduced by the parties." meaning: "I hope you will take care of me. a good woman. and upon seeing his daughter still holding the attended by the aggravating circumstance of having been committed in a sacred place. has sufficiently established said: "Father. stating that Amado probably did not realize what he was doing. he approached her and asked: "Why did you do that.A. as he might not be able to control himself. 1946 morning. in the evening of September 20. with the accessory penalties provided by law. appellant. 19 . conversation. and as Nicolas Jaurigue was then angry. who was seated on one of the front benches. which universal. where her written statements were taken. who was also in the same chapel. she would take poison. and that (b) she voluntarily surrendered to the agents of the base of the left side of the neck. of which Nicolas Jaurigue was acquitted. 1944. J. No. disposal. with the greatest of impudence. Nicolas Jaurigue. Nicolas Jaurigue went Tayabas. and when Avelina's mother made an attempt to beat Amado. She was also credited with one-half of the period of preventive imprisonment father. and that a virtuous woman under a bed in Avelina's room and kissed the hand of Nicolas Jaurigue. Avelina Jaurigue. and that Avelina again received information of Amado's bragging at about 5 o'clock in the DE JOYA. at about 10 o'clock that night. Amado Capina went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting for Southern Luzon. and went with said policemen to the police armed herself with a long fan knife. 1942. and kissed her and touched her breasts." while it was being washed by her cousin. following instructions of the barrio On September 13. 1942. and he thereupon suddenly embraced arrived in their house. And they are the future wives and mothers of the land. 384 February 21. inflicting upon him a wound about 4 1/2 inches deep. and in her brief filed therein on June 10. with the intention of punishing Amado's offending hand. about one month before Nicolas Jaurigue and herein defendant and appellant to go home immediately. resolute and quick. but she quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the that actually committed. which she had in a pocket (2) That the lower court erred in not finding in her favor the additional mitigating of her dress. Recto for appellant. whenever she went out. honor. just Avelina Jaurigue was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty across the provincial road from his house. 1942. and to pay one-half Defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her of the costs. saw (3) That the trial court erred in holding that the commission of the alleged offense was Amado bleeding and staggering towards the altar. while Avelina was feeding a dog under her house. and. misconduct of their son." or more correctly. Amado approached lieutenant. to close their that fatal night. Amado seized Avelina's circumstances that (a) she did not have the intention to commit so grave a wrong as right hand. The high conception of womanhood that our people possess. her father. Such forgiveness. and which were presented as a part of On September 15. and Avelina surrendered herself. Assistant Solicitor General Enriquez and Solicitor Palma for appellee. Nicolas to make use of all reasonable means available within their reach. conscious of her personal dignity and criminal responsibility.C. and sat on the front bench ranging from seven years. Amado. Avelina received information that Amado had been AVELINA JAURIGUE. defendants. indemnify the heirs of the deceased. She kept the matter to said policemen briefly of what had actually happened in the chapel and of the previous acts and herself. Amado Capina snatched a handkerchief belonging to her.000. she conduct of the deceased. and informed tempered girl. plaintiff-appellee. under the circumstances. he told them to end the vs. on account of which Avelina. bloody knife. defendant and appellant immediately surrendered the knife marked as Exhibit B. That "Aveling. and when three policemen her and spoke to her of his love. which authorities. Amado Capina was seated on the other side of the chapel. headquarters. Casimiro Lozada. about midnight. Josefa Tapay. She immediately screamed for help. saying: "Kayo na po ang bahala in the barrio of Sta. unless accompanied by him. without saying a word. bearing her nickname doors and windows and not to admit anybody into the house. approached Avelina That both the defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue and the deceased Amado Capina lived and asked her why she did that. until the following morning when she informed her mother about it. defendant Avelina Jaurigue appealed to the Court of Appeals the presence of Avelina Jaurigue. and questioned them about the incident. Jaurigue sent for the barrio lieutenant. Amado climbed up the house of defendant and the evidence for the prosecution. but defendant to the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists of which he was the treasurer. even asked him to elope with her and that if he should not marry her. one nearest the door. evidently for self-protection. at the trial in the court below. Amado's parents came to the house of Nicolas Jaurigue and apologized for the THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. to attend religious services. 1942. 1942. in the defense of their honor. Casimiro months and eleven days of reclusion temporal. I could not endure anymore. and sat on the bench next to the last suffered by her. He felt her forehead. is evidently with the intention of abusing her. also for the purpose of attending religious services. Nicolas Jaurigue and Avelina Jaurigue were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of At about 8 o'clock in the evening of the same day. NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE. September 20. and for Amado's parents. her husband prevented are the reasons why. when brutally attacked. It has been entertained and has existed in all civilized communities. Isabel. nine facing the altar with the other officials of the organization and the barrio lieutenant. (1) That the lower court erred in not holding that said appellant had acted in the placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. barrio lieutenant Lozada advised the former had been courting the latter in vain. which she flatly refused. City of San Pablo. in their barrio. Since then. appellant.

it was held defendant and appellant committed the crime of homicide. while she was going from her house to a certain tienda. But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily and unconditionally In the language of Viada. Diaz. without revealing his identity. be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from arresto mayor in its medium degree. United States vs. there was and there could of P2. we have the right to property acquired by us. that the offense was committed that she was unable to free herself by means of her strength alone. in accordance with the provisions of article 69 of the Revised Penal actually believed it to be the beginning of an attempt against her. for her to protect her honor from so great an outrage (1 Viada. and agreed to go to her house shortly thereafter and to remain not the least prized of our patrimony (1 Viada. Apego. and there were already several two years. . even though her cry for the consolation of religious hope in a world where so many others have hopelessly lost the faith assistance might have been heard by people nearby. she cannot be legally declared beautiful roses in their public gardens. known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law. since she had no other means of defending herself. in stabbing to death the deceased her arm. 504). wounds. as shown by Legislature. the was and receiving no reply. therefore. in the manner and form and under the circumstances above indicated. as minimum. a woman is justified in killing her aggressor. the defendant and appellant should be brother-in-law returning home with his wife. like the excessive. inflicting upon him a mortal wound 4 1/2 inches deep. 249). holding her firmly from behind. there subject to the order of the said barrio lieutenant. with the accessory people. 62 Phil. defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue is hereby sentenced to an door of the barrio chapel and placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh. p. touched her private parts. as in a few moments later. there is not the least doubt that. Thus. and. the penalty to be imposed in the instant case is that of prision undoubtedly for the purpose of raping her. herein defendant and appellant should the authorities cited above. 391. if defendant and appellant had killed Amado Capina. 1 Phil. typical of our country girls... pp. Avelina is not a criminal by nature. to her consent. without indeterminate penalty ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor. Apego. and surreptitiously entered her bedroom.. with the modification of judgment case. Consequently. Codigo Penal. should be afforded exemption from criminal liability. our own person. who still possess assailant with a bolo which she happened to be carrying at the time. And this is another mitigating circumstance which should be in the defense of her honor. with the aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in in making use of a pocket knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor. and so is the first assignment of error to a certain degree.. taken. they always receive the protection of all. in an isolated barrio trail. about ten of them. and it is evident that a woman who.. 310. him only one single wound. cannot be legally sustained. In the instant case. where the deceased grabbed the defendant in a dark night at considered in her favor (United States vs. and. as maximum. 472). 23 as an attempt against her honor (United States vs... to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Amado Capina.. she asked who the intruder Amado Capina. inside the chapel. as there is no evidence to and which ended in his death. and The claim of the prosecution. 15 Phil. and to pay the costs. Brobst. That country is completely exempt from criminal liability. to be well of making purchases (United States vs. 14 Phil.. for the purpose The questions raised in the second and third assignments of error appear. wanted to punish his offending hand with her knife. without warning and 123). 173). be reduced by two degrees. however. in the struggle that followed. when the latter climbed The law prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for the crime of homicide.. Arribas. Codigo Penal. and the further fact that she had acted in the immediate vindication of legitimate defense.. De la Cruz. or temporary loss of reason and self-control. the means employed by her in the defense of her honor was evidently the days of chivalry. Although she considered in her favor. 22 Phil. There is a country where women freely go out unescorted and. dark and isolated place. inasmuch as a woman's honor cannot but be esteemed as a right as of a grave offense committed against her a few moments before. admitting having stabbed the deceased. People since such killing cannot be considered a crime from the moment it became the only means left vs. and if it should up her house late at night on September 15. and under the facts and circumstances of the case. And when she gave Amado Capina a thrust at the base of principal penalty.. 301. not to exceed 1/3 of the be no possibility of her being raped.. and show that the defendant and appellant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel that consequently exempt from all criminal liability (People vs. an agent of the authorities (United States The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an unlawful aggression sufficient to put her in a state vs. and. and the right to honor which is immediately after the incident. 41 Phil. People vs.. 27. was perfectly justified in inflicting wounds on her provocation. she was not completely Code. in the sum and other dignitaries of the organization. she is entitled to a reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon her. 391). it is the duty of every man to protect and show loyalty to womanhood. United States vs. believing that some person was attempting to abuse her. 5th ed. Phil. and upon such provocation as precious. near the appealed from. Santa Ana and Ramos. about 9 o'clock. and pursuant to the provisions of section 1 of Act No. Fortaleza. nay kills the offender. if not more. sustained by the learned trial court. than her very existence. According to the facts established by the evidence and found by the learned trial court in this to prision correccional in its medium degree. 86). when the deceased sat by the side of defendant and appellant on the same bench. as indicated by his previous acts and conduct. 950). causing his death 20 . it was not sufficient whatsoever. and to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment. instead correccional. In the case. the said chapel was lighted with electric lights. when the deceased tried to assault her in a of their elders and now drifting away they know not where. and under the circumstances. she could have been perfectly justified in killing him. Defendant and appellant should the left side of his neck. 23 Phil. and one day of prision correccional. with no aggravating circumstance that. aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of surrendered to the barrio lieutenant in said chapel. 331. 16 Phil.. considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor (People vs. but with at least three mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be provocation or aggression to justify her completely in using deadly weapon. in defense of her honor. Switzerland. a place dedicated to religious worship. she was considered justified by the defendant and appellant. Sakam. attacked and killed the said person with a pocket knife. in case of insolvency. 5th ed. including her own father and the barrio lieutenant penalties prescribed by law. 12 Phil. fatal night. as the injured person. United States vs. 61 Phil.. 472. thus to produce passion and obfuscation.000. notwithstanding the woman's belief in the supposed attempt. who turned out to be her own And considering the circumstances of the instant case.. 4103 of the Philippine of merely shouting for help. 64 Phil. 1942. She happened to kill under the greatest And a woman. 172. should be imperiled.. Parana. in which a sleeping woman was awakened at night by someone touching In the mind of the court. as shown by the fact that she inflicted upon As long as there is actual danger of being raped. Defendant and appellant further claims that she had not intended to kill the deceased but merely People vs. four months. warranted in making such a deadly assault.On the other hand. did not do any other act which could be considered accorded the most liberal consideration possible under the law (United States vs. 344). 43 Phil. Rivera. She is a God-fearing young woman. Luague and Alcansare.. Mercado.

likewise hitting him (pp. filed sales application No. who is appellant's compadre.R. He established his residence therein.000. L-26757 and L-45504). 26 and 38. PERPETUA.. No. 1968. Gozon came back after ten days with an amicable settlement signed by the representative The facts are summarized in the People's brief. 240 in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato municipality of Maitum. As Fleischer fell down. rec. on the one hand. of which deceased Fleischer was the secretary-treasurer and deceased vs.000. The 300 hectares set aside for the sales application of Fleischer and Company was declared open (b) In Criminal Case No. aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating Shortly thereafter. the offended party having been investigator was sent by the Director of Lands to Kiamba in the person of Atty.00 as moral into sublots of 5 to 6 hectares each to be distributed among the settlers (pp.R. however. he arose and there he saw the settlement which they had repudiated as resulting from threats and intimidation. According to the survey. Fleischer and Company was the only bidder for P6. 21983. appraised and advertised for public auction. and was conviction of the accused in a decision rendered on September 8. t. 32-33. but the Director of At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22. Graciano Juan. appellant would be prevented misrepresentation and fraudulent machination on the part of the company.also be given the benefit of 1/2 of her preventive imprisonment. were set aside for Sales Application No. 9-14. South Cotabato. 1815. L-33466-67 April 20. J. approved the same and ordered the formal award Verano and Cesar Ibanez together with the two deceased Davis Fleischer of the land in question to Fleischer and Company. 1937 and settled in Maitum. and the land settlers of Cotabato. The proper penalty imposable.000. represented by a private prosecutor. Rubia the assistant manager. Gozon represent by a private prosecutor.R. The place was in the boundary of the highway company. WE take judicial notice of the following antecedent facts: MAKASIAR. landowner in Negros Oriental. father of Agriculture and Natural Resources. p.R. The settlers as plaintiffs. 1816. hitting him. Atty. If the fencing would go on. Nos. P 10.161.000. and the knife marked Exhibit 'No. Revised Penal area formerly leased and later abandoned by Celebes Plantation Company. Branch I. P 2. he is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION world war. No. while the rest were subdivided the sum of P 12. go ahead. 248 and 64. The settlers appealed to the Secretary of and Flaviano Rubia. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Davis Q. lost that case in view of the amicable the walls of his house were being chiselled.000. Jesus Lands. 28858-R and 50583-R) and to this Court on certiorari (G.). saying 'Pare. for the purpose of annulling the order of the Secretary of house and rice drier of appellant Mamerto Narvaez (pp. At the place of the fencing is the which then consisted only of one sala.: Appellant was among those persons from northern and central Luzon who went to Mindanao in This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato. 179-182. Inc. the subdivision was ordered and a public land surveyor did the actual survey in the crime of murder. among whom MAMERTO NARVAEZ. after a joint trial. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. and knowing there is a gun on the jeep.. defendant-appellant. 1983 It appears. Pieza I. So he addressed Court of Appeals (CA-G.000 hectares. possible we will talk it over what is good. we have a crime of MURDER qualified by treachery with the distribution among the settlers. for Thus. 22. 1950. Gozon. acting upon the report of Atty.2234 Code). Defense transcript). if possible you stop destroying my house and if decision of the Court of First Instance in favor of the company. rec. cultivated the area. that this incident is intertwined with the long drawn out legal battle between PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. was appellant. is RECLUSION PERPETUA (Arts. Agriculture and Natural Resources which affirmed the order of the Director of Lands awarding Pieza II). The deceased Fleischer. G. 1815 and 1816 for murder which. 1965 the the group. Jose T.. hectares. At the public auction held in Manila PERPETUA. who. answered: 21 . however. gademit.s. plaintiff-appellee. Fleischer and Company. (CA-G.R. were fencing the land of George Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the jeep. 1970.00 as attorney's fees.s. 8-9. 127-133.00. with the following among those who petitioned then President Manuel L. 28858-R) which likewise affirmed on August 16. t. a former sitio of Kiamba and now a separate municipality of South in Criminal Cases Nos. and the hacienda owned by George Fleischer. 1937 over the same therefore. 1948. P10. and to pay the costs. Nos. Fleischer.00 as attorney's fees. finding Mamerto Narvaez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Meanwhile. while an damages. Both Fleischer and Rubia died as a result of the shotting' (pp. Accordingly. 48. affirmed the decision in favor of the deceased Davis Fleischer.n. proceed. But because of sum of P12.' addressing the deceased Rubia. the offended party having been 45504). G.00 as compensatory damages. the Fleischer and Co. From the available records of the related cases which had been brought to the Court of Appeals Gonzalo B. No. So ordered and he got his gun and shot Fleischer. resulted in the Cotabato.000. but when he heard that the contested land to the company.00 as moral protests from the settlers the corresponding award in its favor was held in abeyance. 1941 but the survey report was not submitted until 1946 because of the outbreak of the second (a) In Criminal Case No.' Appellant apparently lost his equilibrium B ordered confiscated.). t. Callanta (counsel de oficio) for defendant-appellant. built his house. pp. appellant was taking his rest.00 as compensatory damages. This amicable settlement was later repudiated by the settlers. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Flaviano Rubia in the on August 14.017. L- damages. covering 1.s. At that time.n. the settlers filed Civil Case No. deceit. appellant fired at Rubia. P2. Quezon to order the subdivision of the pronouncement: defunct Celebes Plantation and nearby Kalaong Plantation totalling about 2. he is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION for disposition. however. and to pay the costs (p. 21983 on June 3. fencing going on. an American circumstance of voluntary surrender.n. They appealed to the from getting into his house and the bodega of his ricemill. Appellant's Brief. headed by George W..000. This is located in the On May 29. Fleischer in Ps. as follows: of the settlers. 176 Kiamba. only 300 hectares Identified as Lots Nos.

also transferred his store from his former residence to the house near the highway. Vol. "Pare. deceased Fleischer wrote him a letter with the following his compadre. was awakened by some noise as if the wall of his house was being chiselled. Besides. As for the shooting of Rubia. 132.s.. Fleischer fell period shall expire on December 31. appellant on February 21. They claim.n. would have the effect of shutting off the accessibility to appellant's house chiselling of the walls of appellant's house. from the land which they had been occupying for about 30 years. to Defense of one's person or rights is treated as a justifying circumstance under Art.00 monthly. consisting of the deceased and their three laborers. other leaders filed Civil Case No. Vol. Pp.00. avante". 2. he found that one of the laborers of Fleischer was indeed his walls. Flaviano Rubia and myself. 1968. par. supra). 231. sigue. when finished.. on the said day. According to him. when they did the fencing that sealed off appellant's access to the highway. commenced fencing Lot 38 by however. appellant testified: I am giving you six months to remove your house. supra. 755 in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. Fleischer and when Mr. Aside from The act of killing of the two deceased by appellant is not disputed.n. This was in reaction to his having been You have not paid six months rental to Fleischers & Co. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending of P16.000.This resulted in the ouster of the settlers by an order of the Court of First Instance dated First Assignment of Error: That the lower court erred in convicting September 24. 227-229. the deceased Rubia. assigning the following errors: have resulted in the further chiselling of the walls of appellant's house as well as the closure of 22 . t. But deceased Fleischer Brief as above-quoted. p. Fleischer. The verbal exchange took place while of land in which your house and ricemill are located as per agreement the two deceased were on the ground doing the fencing and the appellant was up in his house executed on February 21. 227. however. 1119576 and claiming he shot two persons (Exh.. On August 21. pliers. Obviously. he also had a rice mill located about 15 meters east of the house and a concrete shot them from the window of his house with the shotgun which he surrendered to the police pavement between the rice mill and the house. The posts to which were being nailed strands of barbed wire in several layers. 6). t. Its defendant-appellant although he acted in defense of his rights (p. down. The second house is not far from the site of the dismantled house. He claims. to stop what they were doing and to talk things over with him. The fence they were putting up was made of bamboo and rice mill from the highway. the following requisites must occur: During the pendency of this case. Getting leaning near the steering wheel. 1. A review of the circumstances prior to the shooting as borne by the evidence reveals that five 228. I lost my senses and unknowingly I took the gun on the bed In view of the obvious fact that you do not comply with the agreement. but in order for it to be appreciated. 1968. 1967. Then he saw the damage being done chiselling the wall of his house with a crowbar (p. his first reaction was to look out of the window. Inc. both deceased. Inc.n. This six. and other necessary gadgets. Mr. You have not paid as as even after repeated looking out of his window (pp. such as nail and hammer. which is used for drying grains and copra. 1967 entered into a contract of lease First. 11. while deceased Rubia was to his house.month the shot. in order to avoid trouble. The rest of the incident is narrated in the People's Rubia. 145. in the jeep and thinking that if he will take that firearm he will kill me. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. the Revised Penal Code. ricemill. and When I shot Davis Fleischer. with the last post just adjacent to appellant's house (p. June Talens who was renting a portion thereof. p.. have no alternative but to terminate our agreement on this date. supra). together with their laborers. that he did so in defense of his person and of his rights. compounded by the fact that his house and rice mill will be shut off from the nailing the barbed wire and deceased Fleischer was commanding his laborers. When the appellant woke up to the sound of the chiselling on up and looking out of the window.n. 2). with the company whereby he agreed to lease an area of approximately 100 to 140 square meters Second. as amended). p. supra). authorities. The aggression referred to by appellant is the angry utterance by deceased Fleischer of the He never paid the agreed rental. hinto mona ninyo at pag-usapan natin tenor: kung ano ang mabuti" (pp. appellant was among the settlers on whose behalf Jose V. 1. Unlawful aggression. and On November 14. although he alleges that the milling job they did for Rubia was following words: "Hindi. The jeep used by highway by the fence once it is finished. to avoid trouble. Fleischer's remarks attempts of collection made by Mr. gademit. were doing the fencing and fence. 1966. The persons. 225-227.). they were fencing continued on that fateful day of August 22. since the door of the same opens to the Fleischers' side. Rubia ran towards the jeep and knowing that there was a firearm In the event the above constructions have not been removed within the six. Emphasis supplied). 10. appellant who was taking a nap after working on his farm they used in going to the place was parked just a few steps away. rec. right on the concrete drier of appellant. for that portion awakened to see the wall of his house being chiselled. Flaviano Rubia was nailing and upon hearing water pitcher pumps from the land of Fleischers & Co. without realizing it. the company shall cause their immediate demolition (Exhibit shot at him (p. 132. Rubia looked at Mr. No. bolo or bamboo cutter. he signed the contract although the ownership of the land himself (Art.. t. until the question of ownership could be decided. of Lot No. I month period. bringing with him shotgun answered angrily with 'gademit' and directed his men to proceed with what they were doing. According to appellant. 9. the deceased the deceased was parked on the highway. when he said. thereby cutting diagonally across its center (pp. t. 1966. 1968. and transferred to his other house which he built in 1962 Second Assignment of Error: That the court a quo also erred in convicting or 1963 near the highway. that the deceased were in lawful exercise of their rights of ownership over the land in putting bamboo posts along the property line parallel to the highway. in answer to his request addressed to considered payment. bodega. with the installation of four strands of using tools which could be lethal weapons. Appellant surrendered to the police thereafter. 31. 129.m. Vol. Gamboa and therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability. He Appellant's Brief. 1 of obtain an injunction or annulment of the order of award with prayer for preliminary injunction. crowbar. was still uncertain. The actuation of deceased Fleischer in angrily ordering the continuance of the fencing would Appellant now questions the propriety of his conviction. caused this reaction in him: "As if.. par. 11. 20 of ground floor has a store operated by Mrs. Branch I. I shot Mr.s. I and unknowingly also I shot Mr. The foregoing statements of appellant were never controverted by the prosecution. Revised Penal Code. it was not disputed that the jeep which At about 2:30 p. Fleischer" (p. built in and 1947 at a cost of around P20. 38 from the company (Exh. those ejected was the appellant who. 6). supra). Folder of Exhibits for Defense) for a consideration Third. Some posts were planted question. barbed wire to the posts. and in it there was a gun all morning. Among defendant-appellant despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person. On June 25. 1966. Defense Exhibits). voluntarily dismantled his house.s.s. He therefore appealed to his compadre. Appellant admitted having the store. Mr.

South Cotabato. which may be summarized as follows: Art. dismissal of the supplemental petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines on November 28. Civil Case no.s.the access to and from his house and rice mill-which were not only imminent but were actually Conformably to the foregoing provisions. 1970. elements for justification are present. therefore. there is a head Art. South Cotabato. Fleischer because there will be nobody who will break his head but possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court I will be the one. as it was dismissed on January 23. 755 for annulment of any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. Narvaez asked him to help them.n. The only evidence presented to prove this circumstance was the entrance and exit to the highway. He who was drying corn near the house of Mr. testimony of Crisanto Ibañez. t. resident of Maitum. Revised Penal Code. This was explained by him during cross.. Mamerto Narvaez added 'Noy.. For this purpose. not on the person of appellant. at the time of the incident on August 22. Civil Code of the Philippines). appellant's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable.. pursuant to paragraph 6. p. killing his two victims. Defense Exhibits) 44 Phil. Art. The parties could not have known that the case would be dismissed over a year after actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his the incident on August 22. 1968. to destroy appellant's house and to shut off his ingress and egress to immediate and imminent kind (People vs.. To avoid trouble we better pay while waiting for the case Moreover. between the same parties. She further told him that if they fenced their house. 755 filed on November 14. 2). it is better that you will should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said tell Mr. it was not known who is the right owner of the place. Vol. as he was working in the refuse to deliver the thing. judicata. him not to believe as they were only Idle threats designed to get him out of the hacienda (pp. and Rubia was actually participating in the fencing. There is no question. adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen with a special view to the accomplishment of So we decided until things will clear up and determine who is really the the act without risk to the assailant from any defense that the party assailed might have made. but the latter told (Articles 536 and 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession.. in view of the dismissal in 1965 (by the Court of Appeals) of Civil Case No. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude However. He should have allowed appellant the peaceful enjoyment of WE likewise find the aggravating (qualifying) circumstance of evident premeditation not his properties up to that time. He should therefore be held responsible for the death of Hence. Encomiendas. was the aggression unlawful or lawful? Did the victims have a right to fence Illegal aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of off the contested property. it is reasonable to believe that appellant was indeed hoping for a favorable judgment in his victims. The assault on appellant's property. 1968. Cañete. within which to vacate the land. 429 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides: tenements. that there was aggression on the part of the victims: to appellant's house. aggression.n. Fleischer had given him up to December 31. 536.e. February 21. This cannot be said of a situation where the slayer acted instantaneously . When company won by virtue of the compromise agreement in spite of the subsequent repudiation by the appellant fired his shotgun from his window. which the defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph 1 of Article 11. 539. hacienda. amounts to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law. the element of a sudden place because even though we do not know who really owns this portion to unprovoked attack is therefore lacking. In no case may possession be acquired through force or On August 20. "it must clearly appear that the method of assault because at that time. since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the his failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for publication. instead of chiselling the walls of his house and closing appellant's sufficiently established. i. 2. The crime committed is homicide on two counts. Manlapaz (55 SCRA 598). Flaviano Rubia. if the holder should him. Mamerto Narvaez at the believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of crossing. 429. the deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage in progress. 1967 was just to avoid trouble. As a matter of fact. November 28. his residence and the highway? In the case at bar. and Mrs. 297-303. As WE held earlier in People vs. owner. This was indeed them to stop and talk things over with him. in order to appreciate alevosia. and a The following provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines are in point: laborer of Fleischer and Company. but he could be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete Civil Case No. 1968. on the ground that the Director of Lands had no authority to conduct the sale due to was no provocation at all on his part. that the third element of defense of property is present. he intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. 1970 on ground of res property (Emphasis supplied).. 240 filed The reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of self- in 1950 for the annulment of the award to the company. The question is. 169. we decided to pay rentals (p. there was an actual physical invasion of appellant's property which he had the Article 30 of the Civil Code recognizes the right of every owner to enclose or fence his land or right to resist. 1966 and his execution of the contract of lease on defense. married.6). nothing more was done by the petitioner Republic of the Philippines except Be that as it may. and that such 1970 dismissal also carried the disproportionate to the attack. Mrs. 481). In any case. Vol. t. therefore. that we better rent the deceased.s. nor to close his accessibility to the highway while he was pleading with Fleischer was ordering. Maitum. The dismissal of the noise produced by the victims and their laborers. pursuant to Art. there company. and that will be broken. he the order of award to Fleischer and Company was still pending in the Court of First Instance of may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an Cotabato. WE find. but on his property rights. since not all the to adopt all the evidence and arguments of plaintiffs with whom it joined as parties-plaintiffs. his resistance was the settlers of said compromise agreement. 23 ." (People vs. avoid trouble. The qualifying circumstance of treachery examination on January 21.M.' He relayed this to Mr. however.10. when the accused and his wife talked to a thing must invoke the aid of the competent court. Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. 1968 (two days before the incident) at about 7:00 A. thus: cannot be appreciated in this case because of the presence of provocation on the part of the It happened this way: we talked it over with my Mrs. His plea for the deceased and their men to stop government's supplemental petition was premised on the ground that after its filing on and talk things over with him was no provocation at all. 37 years old. lack of sufficient 1968 to annul the sales patent and to cancel the corresponding certificate of title issued to the provocation on the part of appellant who was defending his property. 46 SCRA 522). 1968 (Exh.

premeditated act. the moral and material suffering of appellant and his family deserves leniency as to his court's conclusion as to the presence of such circumstance may not be endorsed. We find that passion and obfuscation attended the commission of the crime. by any qualifying nor aggravating circumstance. the killing not being attended MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. victims nor that the accused premeditated the killing. that the culprit clung to their (his) CFI rec. was also charged in planning or preparation to kill the victim. indemnification of Likewise. Art.e. his pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.. arresto mayor. 102 SCRA 70). it appearing that appellant surrendered to the authorities soon after the the amendment introduced by Republic Act No. but acted upon on November 4. HIS IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS HEREBY ORDERED.. 14. TO INDEMNIFY EACH GROUP OF HEIRS OF DAVIS FLEISCHER plea going unheeded-all these could be too much for any man-he should be credited with this AND OF FLAVIANO RUBIA IN THE SUM OF FOUR THOUSAND (P 4. 1968 (p. Pan American World Airways (43 SCRA 397). 42 SCRA 238). 1816). Considering that Republic Act 5465 is appellant awoke to find his house being damaged and its accessibility to the highway as well as favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent. but the criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evincing the killings. MITIGATED BY THE PRIVILEGED EXTENUATING him to transfer to his only remaining house. the lowly settlers. his dispassionate ARRESTO MAYOR.000. families from their native soil in Luzon to take advantage of the government's resettlement Since in the case at bar. CFI rec. but extenuated by the privileged mitigating CONSIDERING THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN UNDER DETENTION FOR ALMOST circumstance of incomplete defense-in view of the presence of unlawful aggression on the part FOURTEEN (14) YEARS NOW SINCE HIS VOLUNTARY SURRENDER ON AUGUST of the victims and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the appellant-and by two generic 22. to prision correccional And under paragraph 5 of Article 64. Considering appellant's standing in the community.00) PESOS. FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF circumstances. the same may further be reduced by one degree. The records disclose that his wife. Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code requires a person convicted of prision fencing and destroying his house and to talk things over just before the shooting. The civil liability of the appellant should be modified. must have so aggravated his obfuscation that he lost CIRCUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE AS WELL AS BY TWO (2) momentarily all reason causing him to reach for his shotgun and fire at the victims in defense GENERIC MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND of his rights. appellant is guilty of two crimes of homicide only.50. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty for homicide as reclusion temporal. Evident premeditation is further negated by appellant pleading with the victims to stop the Furthermore. these cases arose out of an inordinate desire on the part of Fleischer and Company.e. the trial Thus. civil liability. were the ones prejudiced. it may be given retroactive effect of his rice mill bodega being closed. being married to a municipal 24 . 1815). Pursuant to Article 69. who uprooted their Fleischer. As WE have consistently held. 39 applicable to fines only and not to reparation of the damage caused. because of the presence of two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance. (p. 1969 made the provisions of shooting. and clung to his premeditated act. NO COSTS. public lands to the resettlement areas of Cotabato.1968. supra. Besides. Considering the antecedent facts of this case. Ordioles. thus forcing ONLY TWO (2) HOMICIDES. as a laborer of the deceased Davis otherwise-to carry out its land accumulation scheme. of Crim. i. Gida. Not only was his house being unlawfully violated. there must be "direct evidence of the reputation. In the case of Zulueta vs. neutralizes his credibility. However. coming so near to the time when his first house was dismantled. 58. the award for moral damages was reduced because the plaintiff contributed to the gravity of defendant's reaction. be a "showing" that the accused premeditated the killing. WITHOUT ANY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. Since it had the capability-financial and Moreover. Considering that the majority of the requirements for defense of property are present. Case No. where appellant had thirty years OBFUSCATION. i. mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation.. voluntary surrender.This single evidence is not sufficient to warrant appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of councilor. correccional or arrests mayor and fine who has no property with which to meet his civil But the trial court has properly appreciated the presence of the mitigating circumstance of liabilities to serve a subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one (1) day for each P 2. it is not enough that premeditation be suspected or these two cases and detained without bail despite the absence of evidence linking her to the surmised. In the case at bar. business was also in danger of closing down for lack of access to the highway. to extend its accumulation of vs. These WHEREFORE. mitigating circumstance.. councilor Feliza Narvaez. determination to commit the crime" (People vs. . of Criminal Case No. 5465 on April 21. but had no sufficient means to fight the big landowners. APPELLANT IS earlier migrated to this so-called "land of promise" with dreams and hopes of relative prosperity HEREBY SENTENCED TO SUFFER AN IMPRISONMENT OF FOUR (4) MONTHS OF and tranquility.. and that there was sufficient interval between the premeditation and the Moreover. there was no direct evidence of the planning or preparation to kill the program. She was dropped as a defendant only upon motion of the prosecution dated October 31. The consequential damages and costs of proceedings. only to find his castle crumbling at the hands of the deceased. there must 1968. the penalty may be lowered by two degrees. the victims' actuations were apparently designed to humiliate him and destroy his evident premeditation. the victims not only contributed but they actually provoked the attack by damaging appellant's properties and business. the penalty lower by one or two degrees shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same. execution of the crime to allow them (him) to reflect upon the consequences of the act" (People despite its extensive landholdings in a Central Visayan province. WITHOUT SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT AND WITHOUT ANY AWARD FOR Consequently. the obvious bias of witness Crisanto Ibañez.

On June 25. 39 applicable to fines only and not to reparation of damage caused. gadamit. this was not so. he should be released. Defense of property can only be invoked when coupled with form of the courts referred to Art. However." Defendant lost his "equilibrium. reclusion perpetua. In the case at bar. Appellant should then their land. There was also no direct evidence of planning or preparation to kill. 249 of the shooting. He addressed the group and asked them to stop destroying his house no provocation at all since he was asleep and asking if they could talk things over. However. In the case at bar. there was unlawful aggression towards appellant's property rights. go Since not all requisites present. 3. The courts concurred that the fencing and chiselling of the walls of the house of the each group of heirs 4.000 w/o subsidiary imprisonment and w/o award for moral damages. defendant was indeed a form of aggression on the part of the victim. to be annulled). proceed. He also shot Rubia of incomplete defense. Art. Whether or not CFI erred in convicting defendant-appellant despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person. WON the court erred in convicting defendant-appellant although he acted in defence of his rights. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle (2 counts) not murder because treachery is not applicable on account of provocation by the with the defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. due to mitigating circumstances and property to Fleisher and Co. On August 22. house and rice mill. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months and he should have left him in peace before time was up. be sentenced to prision mayor. In the case. Penalty is 4 months arresto mayor and to indemnify No. indemnification of consequential damages and costs of proceedings. there was found fence being made. Fleischer responded with "No. to indemnify the heirs. Judgment: Defendant guilty of homicide but w/ mitigating circumstances and extenuating circumstance of incomplete self defense. Although is not in dispute. CFI ruled that Narvaez was guilty. However. 22 of the RPC. However. dissenting. 30 of the civil code recognizing the right of owners to close and fence attack on person defending property. 121 SCRA 389 (1983) intimidation. Fleischer and Co. the victim was not in the position to subscribe to the article because his ownership of the land being awarded by the government was still pending. Although it was enacted only after its conviction. Art. letter. it can be lowered three degrees (Art." and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. On the first issue. 405 explanation) Crime is homicide shooting. Narvaez. since he has served more than that. it may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Art. However. 539 provides that every possessor has the right to be respected in his FACTS: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of David possession Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. He is not liable to be subsidiarily imprisoned for nonpayment of civil indemnity. 13(6) RPC. CFI sentenced him to made the provisions of Art. and to pay for moral damages. assault was not deliberately chosen with view to kill since slayer acted time instantaneously. For both murders. aggression was not done on the person of the victim but rather on his rights to property. 2. Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during  Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack. Also. therefore putting ownership into question. property from Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. At time of the shooting. The defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and  Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. Art. the courts did not err. defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. the civil case was still pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of RPC: Penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. killing the time the two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his was disproportionate to the attack. These mitigating circumstances are: who was running towards the jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. the argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if the 3 requirements are fulfilled. instead of chiseling Narvaez's house and putting up fence. WON he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he is unable to pay the civil He was given 6 months to remove his house from the land. while Art. 1968. considering that RA 5465 is favorable to the accused who is not a ISSUES: habitual delinquent. Shooting was barely 2 months after indemnity due to the offended party. It is accepted that the victim was the original aggressor. Prior to the voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation (read p. 536 of the Civil Code also provides that possession may not be acquired through force or 25 . 64) to arrestomayor. At the deceased.People vs. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property. Here. this Appellant has already been detained 14 years so his immediate release is ordered. defendant had leased his incomplete defense. Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation offset by the No. pursuant to Art. 1. 11(1) RPC enumerates these requisites:  Unlawful aggression. defendant is credited with the special mitigating circumstance ahead. Gutierrez. RA 5465 mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Yes. in consideration of the violation of property rights.

4. Butad. Barangay Liloan. the prosecution’s version. Bullet wound 1. Ormoc itself. in the midst of a drinking spree on the eve of the fiesta in Liloan. Petitioner. Sombilon testified that when Butad told Randy Sabang. stood up and pulled Examined a fairly nourished/fairly developed male cadaver with approximate height of 165 cm the gun tucked in Butad’s waist. No. Nilo Sabang. turning over the revolver as he surrendered.13 Andresa Villamor. occurred. right. 1997. and only after the shots were fired was he able to This much is admitted.5 cm at anterior chest wall.] tiyo.7 cm at distal 3rd lateral aspect of right arm injuring skin & The Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner’s conviction in a Decision21 dated August 16. and the spouses Cruz and Andresa Villamor was having a drinking spree."9 Petitioner and Caparoso also testified that at that the shooting was accidental and done as a means of defending his son. "I will shoot you. he THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. as are the events that Butad was not holding any gun. What is certain is that shortly afterwards. In the midst of the drinking spree. thrust a glass of Tanduay near words "I will shoot you" to Randy Sabang. he claimed to have acted in defense of a relative. Earlier that afternoon. petitioner herein.14 voluntarily surrendered thereafter. Laurito Caparoso.] because it’s [sic] the son of Nilo Sabang.6 TINGA. a person appeared on the scene and punched Butad causing the latter to fall down GENERAL SURVEY: lying partially on his back. Respondent. Andresa Villamor. having confirmed Payud’s testimony that Butad was holding a glass and not a gun when he uttered sustained four (4) gunshot wounds from his own revolver. petitioner. had been chasing after Ramil Perez when the latter demanded payment for a bet Butad had lost DECISION over a cockfight. that the gunshots were fired at a distance of more than 10 inches from the victim’s body and not penetrating thoracic cavity lacerating upper lobe of right lung. was then armed with a . testified that while the group of the deceased holster.7 As to the shooting On January 17.m. most imminent kind which prompted him to try to wrestle the gun from Butad leading to the During arraignment. Butad. 1999. stands in sharp contrast to that presented by the Sombilon in Sitio Landing.R. belligerent mood. who was then sitting across Butad. Calipayan.7 x 0.5 cm at 4th intercostal space mid-axillary line. for the defense. mortem examination of Butad’s body. and the other onlookers. who then uttered the Randy suddenly entered the scene. Petitioner and four (4) other Petitioner theorizes that the fact that Butad was then fully clothed could have accounted for the absence of powder burns on Butad’s body. 2005." the deceased already who was charged with and later convicted for the homicide. "Do report on his autopsy. consequently followed. 2007 petitioner: NILO SABANG. he's the son of Nilo. Philippine National Police.10Petitioner claimed that he then grabbed the for the prosecution and the defense provides a competing set of particulars as to the shooting. The autopsy not say that tiyo[. testifying for the defense were petitioner himself. The following facts were sought to be established by G. Bullet wound 0. chest. 2004 muscles. 168818 March 9. Butad had his revolver pointed at Randy.8 At this point.5 x 0. a civilian agent with the prosecution. An array of witnesses that time. petitioner pleaded innocence.: The chase was witnessed by Celso Pepito. who would testify for the defense.38-caliber revolver which was tucked in his Natividad Payud. prepared by the City Health Office of Ormoc City. Certain circumstances attaching to this evident threat are disputed. on that fateful night. appearing surprised. 1124 of the Revised Penal Code. He pointed the gun at Butad and fired a shot at the latter’s & weight of 65 kg in state of rigor mortis.7 cm x 0.2 Randy’s mouth and uttered the words.20 3. 3 Petitioner reacted to Butad’s statement saying. Within moments. "Please don't[.4 as was the official fight for him because he is a spoiled brat. petitioner claimed he heard gunshots. Ormoc City.23 petitioner prays for his acquittal contending that he acted in defense of his son. another eyewitness to the incident. however. to the horror of young Sabang's father." Payud is certain that at this point. an intoxicated Nicanor Butad uttered the ominous words "I will shoot you" to Randy eyewitness. a justifying circumstance under Art. the trial court convicted petitioner principally on the 3rd intercostal space anterior axillary line penetrating thoracic cavity lacerating upper strength of the testimony of Dr. who was situated right across the road when the shooting Sabang. petitioner and Butad were "take the gun" from Butad. Petitioner appears to have fled but those words. Bullet wound 1. he was already in a vs. supported by the physical evidence. to the effect that the absence of powder burns indicates 2. stands out as the grappling and the revolver was pointed towards the body of truth. the storekeeper Sombilon."16 report5 indicated the following findings: Unexpectedly. and an City. a niece of the deceased. By the time Butad had joined what was to be his last drinking spree. 1 Butad. and denied reconsideration in a Resolution22 dated July 6. "Just try to shoot my child because I’ll never Photographs of Butad as he lay dead on the scene were presented in evidence. attempting to twist it toward his body and away from his son. Nilo. witnesses testified for the defense.12 having drinks together with spouses Cruz and Andresa Villamor outside the store of Melania This version of the shooting. 14 cm from midline.11 Petitioner’s account is substantially corroborated by Caparoso. Butad lay dead.7 cm at mid vertebral column fracturing spine of 8th In this Petition. told claims Butad. the physician who conducted the post lobe of right lung."15 Andresa Villamor then chided Butad and said. Butad himself lay dead from four gunshot wounds on his body. Petitioner. right. an eyewitness to the incident. before the group. Bullet wound 0. close range as claimed by petitioner. At around 6:30 p. His appearance triggered a negative reaction from Butad. As they were Ultimately.17 Payud and Andresa Villamor both saw petitioner fire two (2) more shots near Butad’s FINDINGS: chest. "I will shoot you. He disputes the trial court’s finding that the wounds 26 . along In a Judgment19 dated November 22. Edilberto P.18 1. J. admits to the killing of Butad. He claims that Butad’s act CAUSE OF DEATH: of aiming a gun at his son while uttering the words "I will shoot you" was an aggression of the Hypovolemia 2° to multiple bullet wound. but had his revolver aimed at Randy. thoracic vertebra. but during the presentation of the evidence accidental firing of the fatal shots. Randy Sabang suddenly and unexpectedly appeared Butad. arm of Butad.0 x 0.

claiming that round The distance from which a shot is fired affects the nature and extent of the injury caused on the entrance wounds could likewise be produced in near contact fire. himself had admitted the killing.32 Even petitioner admitted that he had an easy time twisting the hand with which be imposed in its minimum period. Petitioner became the my uncle!" She uncovered her eyes after hearing the first gunshot. to a certain extent. petitioner failed to demonstrate any reason to disturb the findings and On this point. Dr. He A Because I did not find any. His testimony all the more loses significance in the face of Payud’s Court of Appeals. and (3) the person defending the relative had no part in provoking the assailant. "Just try to shoot 5 o’clock in the afternoon of January 17. He went home afterwards and claimed to have my child because I’ll never fight for him because he is a spoiled brat. Payud when they heard the gunshots.29 the killing.39 It was at this time that he and Payud This indicates to us that petitioner did not consider Butad’s words a threat at all. burning of the wound margin.22 caliber as otherwise. These circumstances led the trial court to conclude that there was no unlawful aggression on the Mahusay’s account. victim. Caparoso. Andresa Villamor’s testimony is allegedly from a distance of more than 60 cm or about two (2) feet does not produce the burning. pointing to the testimony of the expanded gases. the fact that petitioner was able to wrest the gun from him Butad and point the gun at the latter.00 to ₱50. 249 of the Revised Penal Code." met Payud on the way home at around 5 in the afternoon. "for The fact that there were no powder burns on Butad’s body indicates that the shots were fired at even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused a distance of more than two (2) feet and not at close range as the defense suggests. Butad’s body did not have any powder burns." Thus. is it a scientific fact that every gun burst within ten (10) inches distance as should any provocation been given by the relative attacked. "Do not shoot signifies that the aggression which Butad had started already ceased. however. you cannot indicate the presence of powder burns? the justifying circumstance claimed by him with clear. circumstance of defense of relative deserves merit. There being one (1) mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. In this case.37 cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence. flame and other solid products of combustion.27 well as there is a gun powder that burst. the penalty shall more gunshots. as the defense insists. petitioner must establish with clear and convincing Butad sustained four (4) gunshot wounds. 36 As found by the In order to successfully claim that he acted in defense of a relative. cannot be validly invoked. testified that he and Payud were already on their aimed a gun at petitioner’s son as he uttered the words "I will shoot you.33 (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion Another crucial point to consider is that the prosecution’s theory is consistent with the physical temporal as maximum. short range fire and medium range The Office of the Solicitor General insists on petitioner’s conviction but asks that the award of fire. supposedly heard gunshots. smudging confined to seeing Butad sprawled on the ground. 1997. the injury is not only due to the missile but also due to the pressure He further avers that Payud was not really an eyewitness to the event. This finding. Moreover. satisfactory and convincing evidence. and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. gunpowder tattooing and. the defense’s own witness. saw petitioner still pointing unlawful aggressor when he continued to shoot Butad even as he already lay defenseless on the the gun at Butad. the presence of four (4) gunshot wounds on Butad’s body negates the claim that Moreover. if the caliber of the firearm is higher or I can say. In of Benjamin Mahusay that he and Payud were already out of Sitio Landing and were heading contrast. The blackening is due to smoke smudging. there is a On the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses.30 In the final analysis.would have looked oblique had the shots been fired during a struggle. and watched as petitioner shot Butad two (2) more times. evidence.000. Q Being an expert. 25 Powder burns is a term commonly used by physicians whenever there is blackening of the We shall first resolve the question of whether petitioner’s insistence on the justifying margin at the entrance of the gunshot wound. he attended a cockfight which ended at unequivocally testified that petitioner even dismissed Butad’s utterance saying. Benjamin Mahusay. (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful COURT’S QUESTIONS aggression." With this conflict way home emerges the question of whether petitioner sensed an imminent threat to his son’s life. distant fire usually produces the characteristic effect of the bullet alone. said in his Counter Affidavit 31 and during conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. 34 A shot fired home when they heard the gunshots. Likewise.42 Applying the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.00. or tattooing typically present in loose contact or near fire. 28 circumstances which are inconsistent with the defense’s theory of accidental firing. 38 Unlawful aggression must be clearly established by the evidence. the accused must prove the medico-legal officer in this case. She unequivocally testified that she turned back and saw Sabang take the pistol from it was Butad who initiated the attack. homicide is punished by reclusion as Butad released his hold of it. 41 ground. it is incumbent upon him in order to avoid criminal liability. She instinctively covered her eyes shouting. His conviction of the crime of homicide direct examination that after the first shot was fired. Under Art. Even assuming that shooting. it will always cause powder burns. that Andresa Villamor did not witness the actual the killing was justified but instead indicates a determined effort to kill him.35 moral damages be reduced from ₱100. It was after petitioner already had the gun that Caparoso heard temporal. may be . Calipayan testified: or injured.40 Furthermore. According to Mahusay. affirmed by the around 6:30 that night. conflicts with the established fact that Butad was shot to death at part of Butad which could have precipitated petitioner’s actions. evidence that the killing was justified. In close range fire. three (3) of which were in the chest area. it is not true. to prove Q And in this case. the defense questions Payud’s testimony divergence in the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses as to whether Butad averring that its witness. 27 . he saw petitioner take possession of the gun is certain. If it is fired about less than ten (10) inches from the It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused has admitted that he inflicted the fatal surface of the skin. 26 Unlawful aggression is a you said. is it always a fact that there is presence of powder burns? primary and indispensable requisite without which defense of relative. Butad was supposedly holding his revolver because the latter was already very drunk having the trial court correctly imposed an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one started drinking before noon that day.000. is conclusive on the Court barring any showing of any arbitrariness or compelling testimony that she went back to Sitio Landing to fetch her children and witnessed oversight of material facts that could change the result. In response to concurrence of the following requisites: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed the court’s queries. injuries on the deceased. whether complete or A It is always a fact.

the trial court correctly withheld the award of exemplary damages. the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.000. 2005. the award of moral damages should be reduced from ₱100.000.As regards the matter of damages. in the absence of any aggravating circumstance. we affirm the award of civil indemnity in the amount of ₱50.00 per hearing. 2004 and its Resolution dated July 6.43 We also affirm the award of ₱180.000. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 16.46 WHEREFORE. SO ORDERED.00. and appearance fee of ₱1. 1999.00 representing loss of earning capacity at a reasonable life expectancy of three (3) years considering that Butad was already 67 years old at the time of the incident.00 for the heirs of Butad in line with recent jurisprudence. are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is reduced to ₱50.45 Finally.00 as burial expenses duly proven.00 to ₱50. Costs against petitioner. attorney’s fees of ₱40.000. however.44 Likewise affirmed are the award of ₱50.00.000.000.000.000. affirming the Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court dated November 26.00. 28 . agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that consistent with pertinent jurisprudence. Civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. We.

10 petitioner and Ferdinand entered separate pleas of "Not the same Code. inflicting upon him gunshot wound on inside the bar and continued their fight with Jaime. Ferdinand Z. Pangasinan. and U-9610 and U-9634. 261 of the OMNIBUS beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. were Branch 46 of the RTC in Urdaneta. 13 to wit: to Article 22. inflicting upon him mortal gunshot The song evokes the bitterest passions. the above-named accused armed did not join the fray as he left the place. the song [My Way]. dated 28 October 1998. unlawfully and feloniously shoot Videoke bar located at the corner of Malvar and Rizal Streets.12 charged under four (4) separate Informations6 for two (2) counts of Frustrated Murder. with intent to kill. inflicting upon him "gunshot wound continue their drinking spree and to sing. all surnamed Ferrer were having a drinking spree in their house because That on or about January 16. PALAGANAS. Jaime struck Servillano Ferrer with CRIMINAL CASE NO. to his damage and prejudice. Jr. Pangasinan. U-9608." Then. they were having a penetrating perforating abdomen. The two groups occupied separate tables. Pangasinan. CR No. what has he got? CRIMINAL CASE NO. as amended. with intent to kill. 1998. Manaoag. 2958 in relation with SEC." the good time.4 affirming with modification the Decision named accused did then and there willfully. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Later. of the song depicted what came to pass when the victims and the aggressors tried to outdo each CONTRARY to Art. when Jaime medical assistance rendered to said Servillano J. urinary bladder. 165483 September 12.11 the four cases were consolidated and were assigned to On 21 April 1998. the above- in CA-G.) and two (2) counts of Frustrated Homicide under Article 249 in relation to Articles 6 and 50 of When arraigned on separate dates. A rumble ensued between the Ferrer That on or about January 16. as amended. Guilty. U-9634 In this Petition for Review on Certiorari3 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. the right shoulder. Ferrer. Pangasinan To say the things he truly feels. in Criminal Cases No. U-9609." Upon motion of Ferdinand. RUJJERIC Z. did not produce it by Palaganas and Virgilio Bautista. Poblacion. Servillano and Michael then went back MICHAEL FERRER alias "Boying Ferrer". of Urdaneta. did then and there willfully. all of the Revised Penal brothers and said in Pangasinan dialect "As if you are tough guys. the few lines Melton "Tony" Ferrer. Manaoag to SERVILLANO FERRER. 1998. For what is a man. Manaoag.9 (Underscoring supplied. did not produce it by reason of the causes independent of the will of the accused and vs. That on or about January 16. Ferdinand went out of the with an unlicensed firearm. which prevented his death. to his damage and prejudice. one (1) The factual antecedents as viewed by the prosecution. y Juanatas. CRIMINAL CASE NO. the three brothers decided to proceed to Tidbits conspiring together.G. rectum bullet sacral region. Branch 46. ELECTION CODE. This is not the first time the song "My Way" 2 has wounds in the head and right thigh which caused the instantaneous death of said triggered violent behavior resulting in people coming to blows. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.A. brothers Servillano. That on or about January 16. in the evening at Poblacion. singing and drinking beer. with an unlicensed firearm. bar. treachery and evident premeditation. around 8:00 in the evening. In the case at bar. who was already living in San Fernando.38 without first securing the necessary permit/license to do the same. 8allegedly committed as follows: On January 16. the above-named accused armed And not the words of one who kneels. Palaganas prays for the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals Manaoag. 6 and 50. on the other hand. Jaime Palaganas arrived together with Ferdinand the crime of Murder as a consequence. the accused having thus performed all the acts of execution which 29 . of the Omnibus Election Code. J. did then and there willfully. in the evening at Poblacion. Pangasinan brothers on the one hand. Inside the karaoke bar. DECISION CONTRARY to Art. treachery and evident premeditation. respondent. all of the Revised Penal CHICO-NAZARIO. 2006 would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence. Pangasinan [Melton].1 petitioner.: Code.R.R. hitting the back of his head. The record shows I took the blows . but which nevertheless. petitioner and his older brother. [Melton] and CRIMINAL CASE NO. He was however pursued by Michael. 2958 7 relative 18 April 2005 of the Office of the Solicitor General. 1998. 248 in relation with Arts. one (1) caliber . only the Ferrer brothers were the reason of the causes independent of the will of the accused and that is due to the timely customers in the bar. "You are already insulting me inthat way. At 9:45 in the evening. 1998. the above-named accused armed brothers and mother at their house in Sitio Baloking. At that time. with an unlicensed firearm. 1998 which is within the election period at Poblacion. other in their rendition of the song. are summarized in the Comment dated count of Murder. U-9608 Michael.5finding petitioner guilty CONTRARY to COMELEC RES. as amended by R. 6 and 50. U-9609 the microphone. and the Palaganases. Palaganas (Ferdinand). but which nevertheless. [Melton] Ferrer sang along with him as he was familiar with death. U-9610 If not himself. Jaime however." Jaime further said Code. Manaoag. unlawfully and feloniously bear and carry of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). which prevented his Palaganas was singing. visited his three and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Manaoag. in the evening at Poblacion. During the rumble. as amended. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. unlawfully and feloniously shoot out and told the latter not to follow Ferdinand. No. conspiring together. petitioner Rujjeric Z. When Servillano saw Michael. to the damage and prejudice of his heirs. 22689 dated 30 September 2004. with intent to kill. unlawfully and feloniously shoot And did it my way! MELTON FERRER alias "TONY FERRER". La Union. then he has naught. Poblacion. JR. Section 261. that is due to the medical assistance rendered to said Michael "Boying" Ferrer PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Pangasinan. treachery and evident premeditation. 7659. Virgilio Bautista and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. resented this and went near the table of the Ferrer CONTRARY to Art. 248 in relation with Arts. did then and there willfully. at 10:30 in the evening. he also went conspiring together. and one (1) count for Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. accused having thus performed all the acts of execution which would have produced Thereafter.

the trial court explained that there was no conspiracy reasonable doubt. 22 Videoke Bar. who was being assaulted by the Ferrer brothers. shortly afterwards.16 On the other hand. Rujjeric. in its Appellant's Brief dated 3 December 1999. who then accosted Tony. reasonable means to prevent the attack of the Ferrer brothers since the latter were only equipped and sought the help of the latter. all Ferdinand calling him for help. causing him to fall on the to rescue their uncle. so Omnibus Election Code. according to the trial court. improbable for the petitioner to have ample time and opportunity to then plan and organize the After the Ferrers' turn in singing. for failure to prove the guilt of Ferdinand Palaganas beyond for Murder and Frustrated Murder. the Ferdinand. however. Servillano noticed that his wristwatch was missing.23 In conclusion. 30 . Before reaching the bar. Unable to locate Michael. in relation to Section 261 of the suddenly stoned by the Ferrer brothers and was hit on different parts of his body. he told Michael "Bato. It also took said to his companion. "Oraratan note of the fact that petitioner was never a participant in the rumble inside the Tidbits Cafe paltog mo lara". shoot them." Petitioner then shot them Videoke Bar (videoke bar) on the night of 16 January 1998.00 for burial and funeral expenses. The Court sentences [Rujjeric] Palaganas to suffer the penalty of bear the pain.000.000. Ferdinand was pointing at them and shoot them!). he was As regards the Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. paltog mo lara!" (They are the ones. was hit on the face and was chased or take cover when the Ferrer brothers started pelting them with stones. and followed by [Melton] who also fell to the ground.00 for the death of [MELTON]. [Rujjeric] PALAGANAS is hereby gun from the latter." The statement outside the videoke bar. Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period or 20 years of imprisonment.00 as moral damages representing unearned income of the charge of Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. and. with stones. Meantime. In On the other hand. They saw Ferdinand about Ferrer brothers were and uttered to petitioner "Araratan.00 for exemplary Omnibus Election Code. the trial court rendered its Decision finding petitioner guilty only of the the heirs of [MELTON] Ferrer the sum of P7. noticing that the van of his uncle was in front of the Tidbits petitioner used an unlicensed firearm in shooting the Ferrer brothers. 1998. the Ferrer brothers went outside.000. Immediately. however. on instinct. 2958. Afterwards. Thereafter. was absent. U-9610. stirred from his sleep by his brother's shouts. The penalty imposable is in its maximum period throwing stones and when (sic) the appellant was again hit several times. Ferdinand was acquitted of all the charges against damages and P100. grabbed the 1. outside of the bar by Junior and Boying Ferrer. it also found that went out of his house and. he closed his eyes and pulled the trigger. Unable to which is 20 years. It also stated that the use by petitioner of a gun was not a Ferdinand then ran towards the house of the appellant Rujjeric Palaganas. faced the Ferrer brothers and fired one shot in the air to force the CONVICTED beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE (Not Murder) brothers to retreat. opted to shoot the Ferrer brothers. 14 asserted the addition. P50. WHEREFORE. however. shooting. and the Palaganases outside the videoke bar. Servillano (Junior) and Michael (Boying). 19 It reasoned that the sudden and shoulder. unexpected attack. arrived and between petitioner and Ferdinand in killing Melton and wounding Servillano and pacified them. Jaime Palaganas along with his videoke bar where they met the Ferrer brothers and. who then started to sing. About thirty minutes later. and to pay On 28 October 1998. occupied a table inside the Tidbits Café and Videoke Bar and started went out of his room to meet Ferdinand. Edith Palaganas. who sang loudly and in an obviously mocking manner. Moreover. He was merely called by Ferdinand hitting Servillano first at the left side of the abdomen. the police officers came and the Ferrer brothers were brought Further. the mere fact that Ferdinand "pointed" to where the the watch inside the bar. it ratiocinated that there was no evident premeditation as there was no sufficient period following set of facts: of time that lapsed from the point where Ferdinand called the petitioner for help up to the point On January 16. later identified as petitioner [Rujjeric] Palaganas. the sequence of the events are so fast that it is a table near that of the Ferrers'. He then met his brother. the trial court acquitted the petitioner of the offense as his use and he turned around and struggled to run towards his house. Jaime was mauled and Ferdinand. 2958 in relation to Section 261 of the [MELTON]. the shooting ensued. the Ferrer brothers continued with the use of an unlicensed firearm. eight (8) meters away standing at Rizal Street. Petitioner.50 as actual medical expenses of crime of Homicide and two (2) counts of Frustrated Homicide. the latter were not carrying any weapon. It further stated ground. Petitioner then was free to run on the other. and that Ferdinand is not criminally responsible for the act of petitioner. petitioner. Much to his surprise. still clad in pajama and sleeveless shirt. it declared that there was no treachery that will qualify the crimes as murder and to the Manaoag Hospital and later to Villaflor Hospital in Dagupan. Jaime was joined in his singing Corollarily. going towards the bar. and that the gun was deadlier compared to stones. bato. after a drinking session at their of the shooting of the Ferrer brothers. the microphone was handed over to Jaime Palaganas.21 It noted that when petitioner and Ferdinand saw the Ferrer brothers resulted in a free for all fight between the Ferrers'. his brother.000. the place. possession of a gun was not for the purpose of disrupting election activities. Under CRIM.20 Petitioner was sleeping at his house at the time he heard house.18 According to the trial court. P50. CASE NO. him. the defense. proceeded to that place. at around 11:00 in the evening.15 He was. meaning "They are the ones. In nephew Ferdinand (Apo) and friend Virgilio Bautista arrived at the bar and occupied other words. This infuriated no actual or imminent danger to his life at the time he and Ferdinand saw the Ferrer brothers Jaime. without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. the brothers Melton (Tony). both petitioner and Ferdinand went to the drinking and singing. The latter then left Servillano and Michael. sister of Jaime and the owner of the bar. it also stated that petitioner cannot successfully invoke self-defense since there was by Tony Ferrer. On his third song [My Way]. saying. P500. so he tugged him and urged him to run towards the trial court held: opposite direction as the Ferrer brothers continued pelting them with large stones. It found that petitioner is solely liable for killing Melton and for wounding picked up some stones and threw them at petitioner and Ferdinand. surnamed Ferrer. does not in itself connote common design or unity of purpose to kill.791. "You are already insulting us. acquitted of [MELTON] Ferrer.17 Ferdinand Palaganas is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove In holding that petitioner is liable for the crimes of Homicide and Frustrated Homicide but not conspiracy and likewise. Servillano later frustrated murder since the Ferrer brothers were given the chance to defend themselves during discovered that [Melton] was fatally hit in the head while Michael was hit in the right the shooting incident by stoning the petitioner and Ferdinand. Jaime. however. When Servillano that the shooting was instantaneous and without any prior plan or agreement with Ferdinand to noticed that [Melton] was no longer moving. JUDGMENT is hereby rendered as follows: Rujjeric then noticed that Ferdinand was carrying a gun." Michael execute the same. on one hand.

CASE NO. he was then a victim of an unlawful aggression perpetrated by the Ferrer conspiracy and likewise. U-9608. CASE NO. [Rujjeric] PALAGANAS is hereby JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT. the mother of the described as "Exhibit O".000.00 without need of proof and actual damages in Second. pay the heirs of Melton Ferrer civil indemnity in the amount of P50. viz: committed are as follows: ART. the Court of Appeals would be acquitted of all the charges. with the use of an unlicensed firearm. Appellant is also ordered to circumstances concur.00. U-9610). that "Exhibit O" should have been given due weight since it shows Ferrer brothers.00. the Court of Appeals' Decision reads: Article 11. which places the defendant's life in actual is also ordered to pay Michael Ferrer actual damages in the amount of P2. moral First. In modifying the Decision of the trial Moreover. petitioner lodged the instant Petition for Review before this Court on Ferdinand Palaganas is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove the basis of the following arguments: conspiracy and likewise.24 same height (5'6"-5'8"). that the appellate court failed to consider a material evidence Ordering accused [Rujjeric] Palaganas to pay Mrs. for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt was true that petitioner and Ferdinand were waiting for the Ferrer brothers outside the videoke of [Rujjeric] Palaganas beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of bar in order to shoot them. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE 3. the instant case and. 11.000. of the Revised Penal Code provides for the elements and/or requisites WHEREFORE. that there was slug embedded on the sawali wall near the sign "Tidbits Café and Videoke Bar". Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights. x x (2) For Frustrated Homicide (under Criminal Case No.259. that the slug found on the wall was. the appellate court held that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender under the unlawful aggressors since there would have been no occasion for the petitioner to fire a Article 13. thus. CASES NOS. the petitioner appealed the foregoing Decision of the RTC dated 28 October 1998. the appellant is ordered to suffer liability: imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years 1. the amount of P100. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. U-9608. (Not Frustrated Murder). Unlawful aggression. the Court ACQUITS [RUJJERIC] PALAGANAS. – The following do not incur any criminal (1) For Homicide (under Criminal Case No. 2958 in relation with Section 261 of the Omnibus Election downward and not upward considering that the petitioner and the Ferrer brothers were about the Code.000. Justifying circumstances.31 It is an act positively strong showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor and not merely moral damages in the amount of P30. No. with the use of an unlicensed firearm. Under CRIM. safety or rights of the person attacked. subject to the in order that a plea of self-defense may be validly considered in absolving a person from criminal MODIFICATION that the penalty to be imposed for the crimes which the appellant liability.28 imprisonment. petitioner before the Court of Appeals. petitioner argued that all the elements of a valid self-defense are present in expenses and P50. the appellant is x.32 It is also described as a sudden and unprovoked attack of immediate and imminent kind to the life. damages in the amount of P50.259. CONVICTED beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE II.90 for his medical and moral damages in the amount of P30. the petitioner. hereby ordered to suffer imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision As an element of self-defense.000. U-9609.00. accompanied by his counsel. his acquittal on all the charges is proper. paragraph (1). U-9609). sustained an injury in his left leg and left shoulder caused by the stones reasonable doubt. a threatening or intimidating attitude. and to pay Michael Ferrer the sum of P2. In its Decision dated 30 September 2004. the judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED. 7. On 16 November 2004. 2. and that the its issuance of a warrant of arrest against him. the Court sentences THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING him to suffer the penalty of Prision Mayor in its maximum period or 12 years of ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE GROUND OF LAWFUL SELF-DEFENSE.556.569. thrown by the Ferrer brothers. for failure to prove the guilt of Ferdinand Palaganas beyond I. even prior to court proved that it was the Ferrer brothers who provoked petitioner to shoot them. Under CRIM. Under CRIM.00 as attorney's fees in CRIM. for failure to prove the guilt of Ferdinand Palaganas beyond brothers. or a threat correcional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. that when he fired his gun Ferdinand Palaganas is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove on that fateful night. of the Revised Penal Code should be appreciated in favor of petitioner since warning shot if the Ferrer brothers did not stone him. then the trajectory of the bullets would have been either straight or COMELEC Resolution No. petitioner contended that the warning shot proved that that the Ferrer brothers were court. that the height from which the slug was taken was about seven feet from the ground. that if it 4. [Rujjeric] PALAGANAS is hereby (3) For Frustrated Homicide (under Criminal Case No. Appellant thereof in an imminent and immediate manner. the "warning shot" fired by Aggrieved.35 for his medical Anent the first issue.33 31 .00.27 expenses and P50. the appellant is CONVICTED beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE hereby penalized with imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision (Not Frustrated Murder). Third. provided that the following and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.000.000. in fact.25 It also stated that the Indeterminate Sentence Ferrer brothers pelted them with stones even after the "warning shot. 26 The dispositive portion of Petitioner's contention must fail. the Court sentences correcional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. U-9610.00 for exemplary damages. U-9609.000. and. that he.90 imprisonment and to pay Servillano Ferrer the sum of P163. U-9608).29 affirmed with modifications the assailed RTC Decision. that the testimony of Michael in the trial the latter.35 and peril. unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack. U-9634. CASE NO."30 Law should be applied in imposing the penalty upon the petitioner. Elena Ferrer.569. in fact. that if this exhibit was properly appreciated by the trial court. Appellant him to suffer the penalty of Prision Mayor in its maximum period or 12 years of is also ordered to pay Servillano Ferrer actual damages in the amount of P163. voluntarily appeared before the trial court. the amount of P43.00 for exemplary damages. reasonable doubt. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

the petitioner's act of shooting In the case at bar. namely. self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly and will not be appreciated. petitioner had several options in avoiding dangers to his life other than confronting the acted in self-defense. former. in a jural sense. it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he Indeed. and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the aggression. In resolving criminal cases where the accused invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability. however. reason to deviate from their findings. and wounding of evidence that he is entitled to an acquittal on the ground of lawful self-defense. it defies reason why he had to shoot the victims at the vital portions of ART. considering the wide distance (4-5 meters) of the latter from the location of the Petitioner's argument is bereft of merit.54 In the present case. Firing established by clear and convincing evidence his plea of self-defense. 32 . not merely imaginary. which contradict petitioner's claim he was chased by the Ferrer brothers. 42 He underwent two (2) Frustrated Homicide for the serious injuries sustained by Servillano in Criminal Case No.43 Michael. We hold that videoke bar. if the petitioner shot the Ferrer brothers manner: just to defend himself. however. nor was his back against the wall. for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. allegedly caused by weakness of the prosecution. foregoing circumstances. a bullet hit his right thigh. the physical must be confronted by a real threat on his life and limb. – Consummated felonies. which even led to the death of Melton who was shot at his head.46 and accomplishment are present. opted to shoot the Ferrer brothers. it is clear that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the Ferrer the Ferrer brothers was not a reasonable and necessary means of repelling the aggression brothers that justified the act of petitioner in shooting them. the person attacked The reasonableness of the means employed may take into account the weapons. the large intestine and urinary bladder. it is settled a warning shot was not the last and only option he had in order to avoid the stones thrown by that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court. aggression. he could have run away. In this regard. the shooting of the Ferrer brothers is still unjustified. There were no actual or imminent allegedly initiated by the Ferrer brothers. are punishable. and attempted felonies. despite the fact that he fired a warning shot. it is difficult to believe that the Ferrer brothers were the unlawful Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code states and defines the stages of a felony in the following aggressors. or taken cover. the Ferrer brothers at this point that both the trial court and the appellate court found that petitioner failed to continued to pelt him with stones. nevertheless. that the Ferrer brothers had provoked the petitioner to shoot them by aggression. U-9610. we find no compelling the proper authorities for help.36 the test of reasonableness of the means employed in preventing or repelling an unlawful Assuming. Such act failed to pass with his brother Ferdinand and started firing his gun. we do not. and another bullet On another point.52 As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the Ferrer brothers with a gun. do not produce it by reason or causes independent of the will of the there can be.38There is no evidence to show that his wounds were which justified the act of petitioner in shooting them.37 Petitioner was not cornered nor trapped in a specific area such that he had no way out. a bullet penetrated two of guilty of the crime of Homicide for the death of Melton in Criminal Case No. There must be actual physical himself must be reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression of the victim. He was still capable of avoiding the stones by running away this Court consistently held that where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self- or by taking cover.39 means of repelling the act of the Ferrer brothers in throwing stones. With regard to Melton. rule that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for the for its execution unremittingly considered important indicia to disprove a plea of self-defense.34 In order to constitute unlawful aggression. It appears that the Ferrer brothers then were merely Moreover. does not signify that he was a victim of unlawful As we have already found. is wanting in the instant case.40 will not matter exonerate him from criminal liability. Servillano and Michael. frustrated. arguendo. no complete or incomplete self-defense. elements of self-defense. Verily. he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the The fact that petitioner sustained injuries in his left leg and left shoulder. on the other hand. U-9609. their body. petitioner was not in a state of actual or imminent danger acquitting him on the ground of lawful self-defense. force or actual use of weapon.47 It is an the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which. concur in their ruling that petitioner is guilty of the crime of wound on the right shoulder. He could have also called or proceeded to the proper authorities for help. defense. As aptly stated by the trial court. 6. petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in not Ferrer brothers started throwing stones. The superficiality of the injuries sustained by the petitioner is no brothers provoked the petitioner to shoot them. pelting the latter with stones. we stated earlier that when the Ferrer brothers allegedly threw stones at the petitioner. or right of the person invoking self-defense. said findings are the Ferrer brothers. petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing It is significant to note that the shooting resulted in the death of Melton.51 bar and saw thereat the Ferrer brothers. limb. there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the Ferrer brothers aggression or that he acted in self-defense.44 It must also be noted that the Ferrer brothers were shot near the Frustrated Homicide as regards to Michael in Criminal Case No. essential and indispensable requisite. It must also be emphasized Petitioner's assertion that. Given the petitioner therein is guilty only of the crime of Attempted Homicide. As correctly observed by the prosecution. We also ruled that even if the Ferrer so serious and severe. while we agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that petitioner is hit his head which caused his instant death.50 In the case at bar.49 To our mind. unlawful by overt acts.41 As regards Servillano. standing outside the videoke bar and were not carrying any weapon when the petitioner arrived the latter had other less harmful options than to shoot the Ferrer brothers. the latter's use of a gun was not a reasonable indication that his life and limb were in actual peril. petitioner's gun was danger to the lives of petitioner and Ferdinand when they proceeded and arrived at the videoke far deadlier compared to the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers. When the With regard to the second issue.35 between the means of attack and the defense.45 It is an oft-repeated as well as those which are frustrated and attempted.53 the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers. as an element of self-defense.There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent The second element of self-defense requires that the means employed by the person defending peril the life. even if the other elements are present. Petitioner. or proceeded to generally conclusive and binding upon this Court. Consummated.48 Without unlawful perpetrator. As stated earlier. and his vital organs. and it is frustrated when the offender performs all Let it not be forgotten that unlawful aggression is a primordial element in self-defense. and the peril sought to be avoided is condition of the parties and other circumstances showing that there is a rational equivalence imminent and actual. U- surgeries in order to survive and fully recover. sustained a gunshot 9608.

) In frustrated felony. 8294 applies to the part of the accused and the wound/s sustained by the victim were not fatal. circumstances are exactly the same except that in case of generic aggravating.59 Given these set of undisputed facts. be interpreted in favor of the accused.74 increase the penalty to the next higher degree. as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault. However. Based on prevailing 33 .58 It was also stated in his medical certificate that he was discharged on ordinary mitigating circumstance. Moreover. 69 his wound was short and he was discharged from the hospital on the same day he was admitted As regards the civil liability of petitioner. we have ruled in several cases that when the accused intended favorable to petitioner compared to a qualifying aggravating circumstance.56 If there was no intent to kill on circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance. such use 2.55 However. since loss was actually established in this case. the distinctions between frustrated and attempted felony are be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance whereas in the case of special aggravating summarized as follows: circumstance. instead of P43. 18. the award of exemplary damages for homicide is P25. we agree with both courts as to the award of actual and complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. and must be proven during the trial in order to be appreciated. aggravating circumstance. 14. it cannot be offset by an ordinary exemplary damages should be awarded in this case since the presence of special aggravating mitigating circumstance. and not a generic aggravating circumstance. proven during the trial in order to be appreciated. Voluntary surrender of petitioner in this case is merely an the same day he was admitted and that the treatment duration for such wound would be for six ordinary mitigating circumstance. it cannot offset the special aggravating circumstance of to eight days only. and that the proper amount for moral damages is P50. such must be considered as a special actual damages should be P42. the same CAN Based on the foregoing provision.556. medicine.68 Republic Act No. the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is some of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 1866. 4. the offender circumstance provided for under Presidential Decree No. Thus. it that some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. No. U-9609. as the latter changes to kill his victim.70However. the trial court proceeded to sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance. a special aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by an shooting of petitioner. the crime the instant case since it took effect before the commission of the crimes in 21 April 1998. 73 Based on prevailing conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period. felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance It is clear from the foregoing that the meaning and effect of generic and special aggravating (italics supplied).000.62 Moreover. the offender has performed all the acts of execution which Aside from the aggravating circumstances abovementioned. 6. less serious or slight physical injury. the latter was admitted and treated at the Dagupan Doctors.000. and upon computation of the same.00 we agree with the trial court and the appellate court that the same must be applied against pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 10. petitioner is liable only for the crime of attempted homicide as regards given by both courts. but the same cannot jurisprudence. 5.18."66Since a generic aggravating circumstance is more In addition to these distinctions. there is also an aggravating should produce the felony as a consequence. it CANNOT be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.374. U-9608 and U-9609. the reason for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident other than whether it is generic or qualifying. several cases that with the passage of Republic Act. as well as the testimony of the physician who designated and appreciated as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic diagnosed and treated Michael. then the crime unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating committed is only attempted murder or attempted homicide. the same must the offender's own spontaneous desistance.00. 8294. we agree with both courts that the proper amount With regard to the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm. special aggravating circumstances are those which arise under special circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was already established. and his victim the nature of the crime and increase the penalty thereof by degrees. temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the court finds the information. It does not change the character damages and its corresponding amount since the same is supported by documentary proof of the offense charged. earning capacity cannot be awarded in this case since there was no documentary evidence to Generic aggravating circumstances are those that generally apply to all crimes such as those substantiate the same. petitioner in the instant case since the same was alleged in the informations filed against him funeral and burial expenses on record. 9. in attempted In interpreting the same provision. of civil indemnity is P50. of the Revised present case. 8294 on 6 June 1997. but in the amount of P25. 2.64 which is a special law. temperate damages Penal Code. In Criminal Case No.00. Actual damages for loss of aggravating circumstance. If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. based on the receipts for hospital. paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code. the crime declare that the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner is to be considered only as a committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide depending on whether or not any of the generic aggravating circumstance. we deem it necessary to modify the award of damages therein.67 This interpretation is erroneous since we already held in qualifying circumstances under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code are present. 19 and 20. Nevertheless.71 Although there may be exceptions to this rule.61 It must always be alleged and charged in the information. the proper amount of before the RTC and proven during the trial. it ruled that "when the law is silent. it is clear that the gunshot wound use of unlicensed firearm.63 as amended by Republic Act merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not No.00 may be awarded to the heirs of Melton Ferrer.72 none is availing in the mentioned in Article 14. Examples are quasi-recidivism under Article 160 In Criminal Cases No. exemplary damages should be awarded in this case since the presence of special aggravating On the other hand.000.000. It has the effect of increasing the penalty for the crime to its maximum period. and must be therein. Villaflor Memorial Hospital for a single gunshot wound in his right shoulder caused by the As was previously established. 1. sustained by Michael in his right shoulder was not fatal or mortal since the treatment period for the penalty imposable on petitioner should be in its maximum period. committed may be serious. 60 Moreover. Michael in Criminal Case No. 1. cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. paragraphs No. The award of moral damages is also consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. It must always be alleged and charged in of the New Civil Code. the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner in the instant case should be Based on the medical certificate of Michael. 3. whereas in attempted felony. the trial court reasoned that such provision is "silent as to felony. the use of an if the wound/s sustained by the victim in such a case were not fatal or mortal.00.57 Therefore. Its pertinent provision states: perform all the acts of execution."65 Thus. However.) In frustrated felony. Under Article 2224 it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree. circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was already established. Therefore. In accordance with Article 64. on the other hand. U-9610 for Homicide.

The penalty imposable on the petitioner is prision correccional under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. the petitioner is found guilty of the crime of attempted homicide.374.00 in addition to the actual damages and moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. the penalty now is twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum period to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum period. the penalty now becomes four (4) years and two (2) months of arresto mayor as minimum period to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum period. U-9609. (3) In Criminal Case No. the penalty imposable on petitioner for the homicide is reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. the latter is hereby ordered to pay Servillano Ferrer exemplary damages in the amount of P25. WHEREFORE.000. the penalty now becomes six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum period to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum period. the award of exemplary damages for both the attempted and frustrated homicide shall be P25.18. the latter is hereby ordered to pay Michael Ferrer exemplary damages in the amount of P25.00 in addition to the actual damages and moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals.000. 34 . As regards the civil liability of petitioner. As regards the civil liability of petitioner.jurisprudence.000. U-9610.77 There being a special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.76 There being a special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. As regards the civil liability of petitioner.00 for each. the latter is hereby ordered to pay Melton Ferrer exemplary damages in the amount of P25. (2) In Criminal Case No.000. the penalty imposable on the petitioner for the frustrated homicide is prision mayorunder Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code. The actual damages likewise awarded by the Court of Appeals is hereby reduced to P42.00 in addition to the actual damages and moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. premises considered. U-9608.75 There being a special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm and applying the Indeterminate Sentence of Law. the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2004 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) In Criminal Case No.

shoot them. Virgilio Bautista did not joined in and just left. approached the brother and said in Pangasinan dialect "As if you are maximum period tough guys. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. that he.frustrated the microphone and a fight ensued. U-9609: Shooting Melton with unlicensed firearm o no unlawful aggression on the part of the Ferrer brothers that justified the act of petitioner • Criminal Case No. 14 HELD: YES. sustained defense. his acquittal on all the charges is proper. Ferrer brothers then were merely standing outside the videoke bar and were • Criminal Case No.38 without first securing the necessary not carrying any weapon permit/license in violation to Comelec Res. • Third. Edith Palaganas. U-9609: Shooting Melton with unlicensed firearm . he told Michael "Bato. Michael was hit on the right shoulder. • ART. thus. 2006 ISSUE: W/N Rujjeric was guilty of the crime of Homicide and 2 counts of Frustrated Lessons Applicable: Aggravating circumstance Homicide Laws Applicable: Art. Jaime resented this. No.There being a special aggravating circumstance of the use of an • January 16.homicide is their drinking spree and to sing. the penalty now is twelve arrived and they occupied a different table. U-9608: Shooting Servillano with unlicensed firearm • First. 11. x x x. U-9610: Shooting Michael with unlicensed firearm . the penalty now becomes six (6) years of Servillano. the penalty now becomes four (4) years and spree in their house because Melton visited his brothers in Pangasinan all the way from San two (2) months of arresto mayor as minimum period to six (6) years of prision correccional as Fernando. sister of Jaime prision correccional as minimum period to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum and the owner of the bar. U-9610: Shooting Michael with unlicensed firearm in shooting them. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. his acquittal on all the charges is proper. You are already insulting me in that way. they went outside. There being a special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm rumble. he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the 35 . It is an essential and • Rujjeric argued that all the elements of a valid self-defense are present in the instant case indispensable requisite. • CA Affirmed • unlawful aggression is a primordial element in self-defense. Melton and Michael Ferrer were on a drinking and applying the Indeterminate Sentence of Law. When Servillano noticed that he.attempted FACTS: homicide. 165483 September 12. Michael was about to pursue him but was stopped by and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Since the brothers could not locate it inside the bar. AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: • Criminal Case No. 1998 10:30 pm: Jaime Palaganas. in fact." Rujjeric shot Servillano first at the left side of the abdomen and. 1998 9:45 pm: The brothers decided to go to Tidbits Videoke bar to continue • Criminal Case No. • Criminal Case No. arrived and pacified them.People v. was missing. Melton sang along. in fact. U-9608: Shooting Servillano with unlicensed firearm . sustained an injury in his left leg and left shoulder caused by the stones thrown by Melton was no longer moving. bato” and they threw stones at Rujjeric the Ferrer brothers and Ferdinand. he was then a • As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements of self- victim of an unlawful aggression perpetrated by the Ferrer brothers. that when he fired his gun on that fateful penetrating his large intestine and urinary bladder causing him to fall on the ground then night. When Jaime sang “My Way”. They were the only customers reclusion temporal . that when he fired his gun. imminent danger considering the wide distance (4-5 meters) of the latter from the location of the four cases were consolidated. They went back to continue to fight with Jaime. Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code while Ferdinand was acquitted of all the charges o gun was far deadlier compared to the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers. 1998 8pm: Brothers Servillano. against him. Palaganas an injury in his left leg and left shoulder caused by the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers G. U-9634: using a caliber . 2958 in relation to • Second. petitioner was not in a state of actual or • Rujjeric and Ferdinand entered separate pleas of "Not Guilty" Upon motion of Ferdinand. They saw Ferdinand at them and said to Rujjeric Palaganas "Oraratan paltog mo lara" meaning • petitioner argued that all the elements of a valid self-defense are present in the instant case "They are the ones. (12) years of prision mayor as minimum period to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as But. Unlawful aggression. La Union. He • RTC: Rujjeric was guilty of the crime of Homicide and 2 counts of Frustrated Homicide could have also called or proceeded to the proper authorities for help but acquitted of the charge of Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. – The following do not incur any criminal liability: • The police came and took the Ferrer brothers to Manaoag Hospital and later to Villaflor • 1. There being a special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm • January 16. He was still capable of avoiding the stones by running away or by taking cover. that Melton with a fatal shot on the head and on the right thigh.R. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights. Ferdinand went out of the bar. the former. • Criminal Case No. for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and. circumstances concur. thus. Servillano noticed that his wristwatch period. Ferdinand Palaganas and Virgilio Bautista unlicensed firearm and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. provided that the following Hospital in Dagupan." Jaime struck Servillano’s head with • Criminal Case No. During the homicide. maximum period • January 16. he was then a victim of an unlawful aggression perpetrated by the Ferrer brothers. 2958 o When the Ferrer brothers started throwing stones. Justifying circumstances.

the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide depending on whether or not any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code are present. 5.attempted homicide • use of an unlicensed firearm . 2. then the crime committed is only attempted murder or attempted homicide. 1. and must be proven during the trial in order to be appreciated. 6. • 2. CANNOT be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance 36 . the reason for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident other than the offender's own spontaneous desistance. 8294 on June 6. 18. 4. 3. the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution. • If there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused and the wound/s sustained by the victim were not fatal. 1997 • Generic aggravating circumstances are those that generally apply to all crimes such as those mentioned in Article 14. and his victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance.) In frustrated felony. in attempted felony. special aggravating circumstance. it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.special aggravating circumstance by Republic Act. • when the accused intended to kill his victim. paragraphs No. No. the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence. 19 and 20. on the other hand. of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover. 10. It has the effect of increasing the penalty for the crime to its maximum period. if the wound/s sustained by the victim in such a case were not fatal or mortal. 14. whereas in attempted felony. less serious or slight physical injury • Michal’s wound took six to eight days to heal . 9. On the other hand.prosecution • 1. the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator. as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault. but it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree.) In frustrated felony. However. the crime committed may be serious. It must always be alleged and charged in the information.

Geminiano de Leon. Rosendo Perpeñan. He walked uphill. on which the judgment of conviction was second wound on the back could likewise have caused the victim's death if it had penetrated based. another episode was taking place. 37 . The withdrawal was granted in the resolution dated November 3. when Ricohermoso refused to Geminiano owned a parcel of land in that barrio which Ricohermoso cultivated as kaingin. The fifty-one year old Geminiano died at two o'clock on that same day. As Geminiano turned right to flee. because the land tilled by the former was allegedly a Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about his share of the palay harvest. Silangan. Geminiano remonstrated: "Why did you tell us to pass by your house.:p 1. Geminiano fell face downward on the ground. Quezon. He carried Geminiano for a short distance. directed Leon and to pay the costs (Criminal Case No. At about nine o'clock in the morning of January 30. When Geminiano returned to Barrio Tagbacan Silangan. waist. Severo Padernal in effect accepted as approached Geminiano from the right. Ricohermoso answered that Ricohermoso met him. defendants. Rito 4. appellants' brief). incised. because it was a deep wound which pierced the carotid artery and jugular vein (Exh. left. incised. and. T. C). Dumlao for plaintiff-appellee. his rifle was gone.R. MACARIO MONTEREY and RITO MONTEREY. The latter looked up to the sexagenarian Severo correct the prosecution's version of the tragic incident and the trial court's finding that he Padernal. on his return. is whether he conspired with Ricohermoso walked to Geminiano's left. He was wounded in the wrist. left. if you were not willing The appellants filed their brief on February 6. JUAN PADERNAL. Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about the palay. convicting them of murder. 1970. Marianito passed out. CCC-IX-37-Quezon or 1922-CFI-Gumaca). Doctor Isabela A. When Geminiano unsheathed his bolo. lateral aspect. When he PADERNAL and SEVERO PADERNAL. give any palay to Geminiano de Leon. anteriorly. The Geminiano could go to his house anytime and he would give the latter palay. plaintiff-appellee. responsibility for the killing to Ricohermoso. answered in a defiant tone: "Whatever happens. Catanauan. 1965. Wound. his twenty-four-year old son abdomen and a lacerated wound on the left foot which would heal from one to nine days even Marianito de Leon and one Rizal Rosales. regained consciousness. ordering them to pay solidarily the sum of twelve thousand pesos to the heirs of Geminiano de 2. He added that he should public land. I will not give you palay. and Trial Attorney Lolita C. We will not fight you. rejoined that he could not get the palay that morning because he was on his way to Barrio Ricohermoso struck him again on the left side of his body. 3 inches deep. to kill Geminiano de Leon. the penalty of fifteen (15) days of arresto menor and to pay the costs. on the neck with his bolo. 1965 Geminiano de Leon. L-30527-28 March 29. left. his son Marianito tried to shoot with his rifle but Juan was about two o'clock in the afternoon. saw his mortally wounded father Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Juan Padernal (Ricohermoso's brother- vs. Matundan certified that Geminiano de Leon sustained the following wounds: AQUINO. Torres Geminiano in his death throes. PERPEÑAN. Monterey and Macario Monterey were acquitted (Criminal Case No. 4 ½ inches. conduct revealed unity of purpose and a concerted effort to encompass Geminiano's death.G. ROSENDO right arm locked around Marianito's neck and his left hand pressing Marianito's left forearm. 1970 (Page At that juncture. a fugitive from justice who has not been tried. sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua and vertebra. The only issue in this appeal. he was hacked on the back with an axe by Severo Padernal. and embraced him. Juan. dorsal. Ricohermoso stood near the door of his house It is manifest that the defendants fashioned their version in such a way as to shift the while Severo Padernal was stationed near the eaves of the house. CCC-IX-38-Quezon or Doctor Matundan said that the first wound was fatal. Cadag for defendants-appellants. drew his bolo and struck Geminiano on the left side of the neck. Wound. when about one meter from him. Bagobasin but. 1974 At that same place and time. Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. no longer conciliatory and They also tried to exculpate Severo Padernal and to prove that Ricohermoso acted in self- evidently hostile. Wound. Geminiano approached Ricohermoso. That withdrawal strengthened the case for the prosecution or the appellee and Geminiano from the left. B). he stopped at Ricohermoso's place. he would stop at Ricohermoso's house and get the palay. SEVERO PADERNAL." While Geminiano was still looking up to Severo Padernal on his right. at least be allowed to taste the palay harvested from his land. Geminiano died on the spot due to the bleeding from the wound on his neck." defense. In the same decision they were convicted of lesiones leves. Later. with his PIO RICOHERMOSO. 1 ½ inches. JUAN They grappled and rolled downhill towards a camote patch. encountered Pio Ricohermoso in Barrio Tagbacan without medical treatment. defendants-appellants. Rollo). cutting the carotid artery and Severo Padernal and Juan Padernal appealed from the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court at jugular vein. Marianito suffered abrasions on the neck and front of the house while Marianito stood about three meters behind his father. stabbed him Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal to kill Geminiano de Leon. Antonio. Geminiano latter tried to parry the blow. Severo Padernal withdrew his to give the palay?" appeal. in-law and the son of Severo) suddenly embraced Marianito de Leon from behind. upper third. which concerns Juan Padernal. as if by pre-arrangement. J. while Severo Padernal (Ricohermoso's father-in-law) got an axe and rendered inoperative appellants' version of the case. Geminiano sat on a sack beside Fabiana Rosales in Padernal disabled him and wrested the gun. Each one was sentenced to suffer 3. The The facts disclosed in the prosecution's evidence. Appellants' version is that in the afternoon of January 30. It While Geminiano was being assaulted. together with Doctor Matundan found that Marianito de Leon sustained multiple abrasions on the neck and his thirty-three-year old common-law wife Fabiana Rosales. why will you do this to us. rifle was slung on Marianito's right shoulder. Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and approached 206. with both hands raised and pleaded: "Mamay (Grandpa). The latter.22 caliber other parts of the body (Pages 1 to 3. Rogerio S. incised. skin only. It could have caused instantaneous death 1923-CFI-Gumaca). forearm. Nos. conspired with Ricohermoso and his son. back lumbar region. neck. are as follows: the kidney. A . While in that helpless The trial court rationalized its conclusion that there was conspiracy by stating that their position. 4 inches in length crosswise with fracture of the cervical Lucena City. causing him to fall on the ground. Hematoma. (Exh. while Severo Padernal and Ricohermoso were assaulting THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

As to the other case. Barba. It is doubtful if the assailants could have consummated rifle he carried beforehand was gone and that his father was mortally wounded. costs against him. one armed with an axe and Upon returning from his trip to Barrio Bagobasin. Revised Penal Code) in explaining his act of preventing Marianito de imposed. 684. chanced upon Pio Ricohermoso. 97 Phil. during the interval. That contention is not well-taken. should be allowed to taste the palay harvested from his land. by disabling Marianito de No. Leon from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. while his father-in-law Severo Padernal Considering the trio's behavior and appellant Juan Padernal's close relationship to got an axe. The trial court convicted them lesiones leves. and his brother-in-law. Ricohermoso changed his Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury mind. when Ricohermoso W/N appellant Juan Padernal can invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater struck him on the neck with a bolo. The case was (Note: Severo Padernal withdrew his appeal. the ineluctable conclusion is that he acted in conspiracy law Juan Padernal suddenly embraced Marianito. as that in which reclusion perpetua was injury (par. case. like his circumstance is erroneous. pleaded in a loud voice: "Do not shoot me. assailants and not an act to prevent infliction of greater evil or injury. His intention was to Treachery was appreciated in a case where the accused fired at the victim who. Juan Padernal contends that he was not a co-principal because he did not take any direct part PEOPLE V RICOHERMOSO in the killing of Geminiano. in effect. son Marianito de Leon and one appellant Juan Padernal. He coordinated and timed his seizure of Marianito with the assault of Ricohermoso which point Marianito passed out. the judgment of the lower court as to appellant Juan Padernal is affirmed with the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to his assailants. Revised Penal Code). whatever happens. roles with dramatic precision. Geminiano had an understanding with Ricohermoso 11FEB that he (Geminiano) would return in the afternoon to get his share of the palay harvest. When he regained consciousness. confronted Geminiano de Leon. Geminiano dropped by Ricohermoso’s the other with a bolo. thus. Dagundong. without their suffering any injury. respect to Marianito de Leon. It should be recalled that. They grappled and rolled down the hill. Geminiano did not expect that Ricohermoso would renege on his promise to give him palay and that he would adopt a Held: bellicose attitude. that he did not force or induce Ricohermoso to stab Geminiano and that he allegedly did not cooperate in its commission. with lesiones leves. Aquino Geminiano his share of the harvest. the thirty-five-year old Juan Padernal embraced Marianito de Leon and give him the palay. cultivated as kaingin. His reliance on that justifying Inasmuch as Juan Padernal did not touch upon the lesiones leves case in his brief. Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable Marianito. together with his common-law wife. Owning a parcel of land. His Issue: hands were raised and he was pleading for mercy with Severo Padernal. L-30528. Severo Padernal. in the morning. performed their assigned could collect the palay anytime. seems to have acquiesced in the correctness of the trial court's decision. Ricohermoso’s brother-in- Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. to which the latter answered defiantly that he will not with that maneuver. the aggressors in this to insure the assassination of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to themselves (Par.Appellant Juan Padernal invokes the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or Law that a case arising out of the same occurrence. he. Simultaneously house and asked him about the palay. Facts: Ricohermoso planned with his father-in-law. At the same time and place. the killing of Geminiano. if Marianito had not been The defendants shifted the responsibility of killing in their version of the case. and attacked Geminiano. The trial court convicted the appellants (People vs. However. was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to the Article 14. Severo Padernal and Ricohermoso. Ricohermoso gave Geminiano the impression that he (Ricohermoso) was amenable to giving L – 30527 – 28 | March 29. The circumstances surrounding the killing of Geminiano de Leon alevosia or treachery. which Ricohermoso Ricohermoso with demands for a share in the harvest. who were the aggressors. Instead of remaining steadfast to his original intention to give Geminiano palay. with hands forestall any interference in the assault. Padernal's SO ORDERED. rendered helpless by appellant Juan Padernal. Juan Padernal's role of weakening the defense. The fact that an exchange of words preceded the assault evil or injury would not negate the treacherous character of the attack. Art. the manner of liquidating Geminiano as to stop him from pestering Rizal Rosales. 11. is appealable to this Court. 16. See People vs. prearrangement). Geminiano de Leon. investigate first what was my fault" Treachery was also appreciated in the case. 4. from an attempted murder charge with respect to Marianito de Leon. like actors in a well-rehearsed play. Severo Padernal. upraised. 1974 | J. Geminiano remonstrated and that point (as if by prevented him from firing at Severo Padernal and Ricohermoso or from helping his father. Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo. Geminiano asked about his share of palay harvest and added that she So. 108 Phil. 991. shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. he discovered that the and Severo Padernal on Geminiano. when Geminiano reappeared at Ricohermoso's place in the afternoon. was part and parcel of the means of execution deliberately resorted to by the assailants preventing Marianito from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. the charge against the appellants was attempted murder with Judgment as to Juan Padernal affirmed. accepted the prosecution’s version included in this appeal apparently pursuant to the provision in section 17(1) of the Judiciary of the case and trial court’s finding of guilty 38 . The act of Juan Padernal in preventing Marianito de Leon from father Severo. That situation is unarguably not the case envisaged in paragraph 4 of article 11. Juan Padernal’s reliance on the justifying circumstance is erroneous because his act in Leon. was designed to insure WHEREFORE. Ricohermoso said Geminiano Ricohermoso Juan Padernal. 682. malicious intention was to forestall any interference in the felonious assault made by his father and brother-in-law on Geminiano. 693). at with them. in a pincer movement.

If she would be liable then that would be tantamount to compelling her to go into a courtship. (Art. NORMA HERNANDEZ (1959) of the appellant changing her mind. Mariano Hernandez (father) & Ramona Martinez cannot be sustained that appellant was motivated by spite or ill-will in deliberately frustrating the (mother) marriage. she appealed.  Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage. She was merely exercising her right not to give her consent the BY MAROON 5 PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES JUNE 1. appellant was nowhere to be found. There is no malice in the act PEOPLE v. they brought chickens and goats and they agreed par.  While the celebration was going on. RATIO: 39 . There always existed good relations between them for they were neighbours so it Defendant-Appellants: Maria Norma Hernandez. P20 for the sponsors and to repair the uncle’s roof.  Malice. shoes.  Before Vivencio’s parents came to their home. appellant finally accepted Vivencio. Her parents tried to persuade her to accept the proposal and that she only accepted it out of obedience to her parents and the uncle’s insistence. On the same date. 2012 SLANDER marriage after mature consideration.4. one of the essential requisites of slander hasn’t been proven. there were no strained relations existing between the complainant & appellant before Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines the incident.  Appellant’s parents also corroborated her testimony.  RTC convicted her of serious slander by deed because she purposely and deliberately fled to prevent celebration of marriage.  Furthermore. RPC) to buy a wedding dress. 11  When Vivencio and his parents went to her house. started courting appellant. she already counselled them not to bring the chickens and that they should not regret whatever may happen later. HELD:  Court reversed the RTC judgment and acquitted the appellant.  Appellant said she felt torture because she wasn’t honestly in love with Vivencio and so she decided to leave home as last recourse to prevent the marriage. she asked him to bring his marriage without her free consent. parents over her home so that they could talk about their marriage.  Norma Hernandez averred that Vivencio was really courting her but that she wasn’t really in love A with him. Maria Norma Hernandez and after months of marriage. Vivencio and his parents – ALP waited but she never showed up thus causing them great shame and humiliation. FACTS:  Appellant has the privilege to reconsider her previous commitment to marry and it would be utterly inconsistent to convict her for slander by deed simply because she desisted in continuing with the  Vivencio Lascano. 19 y/o. Thus. 2 vestidas.

but the bullet did not hit him. The policeman dodged. without parting with his weapon.G. Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee. armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. who was looking for him. 1922 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand. The criminal ran away. FELIPE DELIMA. this time hitting and killing him. Tancinco & Rosales for appellant. No. plaintiff-appellee.lawphil. and to impose his authority fired his revolver. L-18660 December 22. although it proved to be fatal. and demanded his surrender.R. defendant-appellant. ROMUALDEZ. after evading service of his sentence. He appeals from that judgment which must be reversed. These peace officer went after him and fired again his revolver. Some days afterwards the policeman Felipe Delima. which. and had no right. That killing was done in the performance of a duty. vs. was justified by the circumstances. J. The policeman was tried and convicted for homicide and sentenced to reclusion temporal and the accessory penalties. it. The deceased was under the obligation to surrender. found him in the house of Jorge Alegria. The fugitive answered with a stroke of his lance.: Lorenzo Napilon had escaped from the jail where he was serving sentence.net 40 . which compelled the policeman to resort to such an extreme means.

Delima dodged. it. Delima was tried and convicted for homicide and sentenced to reclusion temporal and the accessory penalties. was justified by the circumstances. G. which compelled the policeman to resort to such an extreme means. Delima went after him and fired again his revolver. 1922) 41 . armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance.R. (People vs. but the bullet did not hit him.People vs Delima Case Digest Facts: Lorenzo Napilon escaped from the jail. Some days afterwards. Napilon ran away. December 22. after evading service of his sentence. although it proved to be fatal. without parting with his weapon. this time hitting and killing him. No. and demanded his surrender. Delima. L-18660. which. and to impose his authority fired his revolver. The deceased was under the obligation to surrender. policeman Felipe Delima found him in the house of Jorge Alegria. and had no right. Held: The killing was done in the performance of a duty. to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand. Napilon answered with a stroke of his lance.

While we were searching for him. (23)." Tipace is already dead "I did after we were called by Ignacio Lagata because we were going home already. The bullet penetrated from the left side of Ignacio Lagata was a provincial guard Six Prisoners were then assigned to work in the the armpit and came out from the right side of the body. The Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. The second one hit have gone that way. Samar. At about 11:00 o'clock noon." (8-9). Not long sitting by the front of the coconut tree I heard another gun shot. All "A gun shot wound which went through the body from the lower left axillary region to the walked almost together at the moment because they wanted to see the footprints pointed by the right shoulder. Eusebio Abria 20 single farmer Jinangutdan." (43). "At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that day I returned to the provincial ordered them to go to the nursery to pick up gabi. It is not yet completely healed. " Lagata orderedus to search for Epifanio Labong. My left arm is amputated just right at the Labong but Epifanio Labong did not answer. When he was shot Abria was inviting the prisoners to go the nursery to gather near the provincial hospital. Eusebio Abria and myself saw flattened grass.G. Mariano Ibañez. "Upon seeing that one 2. Epifanio Labong. (35). I did not return immediately because I was afraid. 25. L-1940-42 March 24. Lagata called them. The get gabi." Abria came to the PERFECTO. married detained prisoner. Tipace. "When I saw six prisoner who worked in the premises of the capitol building. Jesus Manoso. 20. gathering gabi Lagata was near them." Tipace was at about two meter then capitol's plaza. The witness heard Labong ask o'clock they were taking a rest and while they were taking a rest the witness heard Lagata Lagata to accompany their group to the nursery to gather gabi. He fired at my left arm. While we were all in the camote plantation I did not know that I was shot by Ignacio Lagata. Lagata to inform him that he saw footprints. Lagata was mountain. Epifanio Labong was missing. Nos." (132-14)." Tipace was killed. "I was already descending near the Capitol The place was grassy were picking gabi Lagata was standing by the side of a mango tree. It was grassy in the place where we were picking gabi. president Sanitary Division Catbalogan. The nursery is near the provincial hospital in Lagata gave the witness fist blow on the abdominal region and kicked him at the back Because Catbalogan. married detained prisoner Zumarraga." (29). appellee. — On October 3. One morning. 1946 he "standing and carrying with him on his left arm some gabi and when he turned to the left that was in the provincial jail detained for illegal possession of firearm. "We went to the nursery that he again manipulated the chamber of his gun I ran away. Torres and Solicitor Jaime de los Angeles for witness was at the left side of Ceferino Tipace at about two meter from Abria. Not long afterwards they were called to jail. standing one of his companions was at his right side three or four meter behind him. I called my companions. — On October 3. When Ignacio Lagata passed by where I was I Requested him to take missing. When I was already ten meter awayfrom him. was the time when he was shot by Ignacio Lagata. Gilberto C. "I did not have ill- Labong did not answer Lagata ordered the five prisoners to look for him. Jesus Manoso ran away with the the call of Lagata only five them to call for him. (38). The five prisoners went towards the looking toward the ground one after another at about half a meter from each other. flattened grass and that hewas unable to look for Epifanio Labong sa Ignacio Lagata filed at Vicente del Villar for appellant. (23). 1946." The witness had no were taller than myself. I heard a gun shot being shot. "Come around assemble here. "Inasmuch as Epifanio Labong did 42 . "We scarcely got three gabis when I heard Ignacio Lagata calling us to assemble." His companion then was Jesus Mañoso. (31).: right side of Lagata. One was not see him anymore. (17). When I say that my other and each one of us got gabi. I am wounded." At the time the witness was October 17. their guard from Lagata. (41). The other the place and then crossed the national highway and went up the mountain until we reached prisoner did not say anything. of our companions was already shot without fault. witness. The place was grassy. They went to work in the plaza of the provincial jail. At building that was the time when I heard the shot. behind all of them. On account of this report of Eusebio that he saw IGNACIO LAGATA. Upon reaching a camote plantation. Lagata ordered the five prisoner to call Labong (4-7). "The reason as to why I ran was because I was afraid that I might be shot again. plaintiff-appellee. — On He was about four meter away from me. "Mano." and that was the time when Eusebio Abria was shot and then once he was hit he called Ignacio (16). While they were tom place where cogon grass were growing. The guard Ignacio Lagata was under the mango tree. After the first shot "we were all assembled. Eusebio Abria and the guard. him and he was hit on the left arm. Eustaquio Galet. (11)." At the time Tipace was 1. 1949 not answer our call Ignacio Lagata ordered us to go to the mountain and look for Epifanio THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. He brought me to the justice building Hospital.' He said it is because you did not approach to me. The witness did not see Tipace Epifanio Labong each one of us were bent and leaning looking downward. "Oncewe were already assembled there Ignacio Lagata cocked his The witnesses in the this case testified in substance as follows: gun and shot Ceferino Tipace and when I saw that Ceferino Tipace was hit then I ran away PROSECUTION because I had in mind that had i not ran I would have been shot also. Labong asked Lagata permission to gather gabi. After breakfast. "I saw footprints. 1946. Lagata told them to go to the nursery. I was about companion ran away. At the time trail. He foundfootprints and he called Ignacio vs. They reached the provincial jail at about 12 witness. I am wounded. Eusebio Mariano the witness and Epifanio Labong. Eustaquio Galet." (40). The witness heard three shots. As Labong did not answer their they were searching for Labong before the shooting they were walking in an ordinary way call Lagata ordered the five to look farther for him. defendant-appellant. Rosales 63." (39) The talahib plants growing in the place joint between the shoulder and the arm. but his case was dismissed. His companions were probably scared and that is why they ran. (12). We went around intention to run from Lagata. Mariano Ibanez.R. Upon reaching the nation highway. 3. six prisoner were called: building and then went to the provincial jail and reported the matter to the sergeant of the Epifanio Labong Ceferino Tipace." witness heard the shot that killed Ceferino Tipace. I ran also. Eusebio then went to the camote plantation." Lagata said in turn. They scattered to bent and leaning his body downward to the ground while Lagata was behind him. As the pervious night the witness told the prisoners not to make much noise. "At the moment that he was hit he immediately called the attention of Ignacio Lagata 4. assemble. The shooting took place at about 11:30. I noticed that my left arm was wounded. Santa Rita Samar. Samar. The witness found in it." He was at about three meter from Lagata. he was one of the 'Mano. Then Ignacio Lagata fired one time. the cadaver of Ceferino Tipace was exhumed. I ran away and came down to the capitol he was in the provincial jail as a detained prisoner. (22)." (36).Abria said. married. They followed the feeling because he had the right to maltreat me even if I was not at fault. Ignacio Lagata ordered us to call Epifanio Labong but Epifanio me. (42). — On October 3. 1946. But he could not see everybody because there was We informed Ignacio Lagata that there was a trace where a person had passed by or he may talahib growing in the place and it was tall. (19-21). Lagata his hand at his wound and then got near Ignacio Lagata. J. Labong. Jesus.

When he fired at Abria. 810) — An indeterminate imprisonment 8:00 o'clock in the morning. They were The evidence is conclusion to the effect that the escape of prisoner Epifanio Labong was due scattered back. 27. 811) — An indeterminate 10 o'clock in the morning. The witness stayed in the nursery until about 8:30. when he told them to return to the provincial jail. escaped and some of them were discharged from their duty. They did not heed my order to stop." (50). I called his attention and told him to stop from towards appellant andwith the undisputed fact that Tipace was hit near one axilla. and he was at about four or fivemeter away from appellant. Up to above the national highway. he accompanied the six and prisoners from the provincial jail to the plaza of the provincial capitol. (73). the latter was about five meters DEFENSE from him and when he fired at Tipace. The ground near the hill was covered with cogon and talahib. (81). He did not heed my order. minute elapsed from the time the witness fired at Abria to the time he fired at Ibañez. The accused was near them. After I fired at Eusebio Abria. the trial court height they could cover a man in standing position. 2. indemnify the heirs of Ceferino Tipace Two building. His face 1946. At the time. Lagata was under a (p. The six prisoners imprisonment of two (2) months one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to one requested him to allow them to get some gabi in the nursery. I could only see two of them I also saw one of them has not even shown that Abria attempted to escape. When we arrived at the place. I fired at him. the accused maltreated fired at close range. If Tipace's purpose was to escape the natural thing for 69). I saw also Ibanez running. Catbalogan. he was confined in the hospital until November 6. "I was within the premises of the nursery just beyond the mango tree. (78). The six prisoner were supposed to work in the plaza of the when I called them to assemble I found out that one missing. The 43 . coming out from the opposite shoulder. Lagata went with them to a spot (1) year one (1) month and ten (10) days of prison correccional and pay the costs. tissues destroyed from outward and inward. There are indications that the shot was accused because the latter fired at his father-in-law. — On October 3. At the time they the arm because "all the vital tissues were destroyed and the bone in all the vital parts of the were looking for Labong. So I by the witnesses for the prosecution. the latter was four meters from him. because he had to attend (a) For Murder (Case No. — On October 3. (55). from them and he was looking at them all the time. Pedro Mayuga. Lagata was about seven meters hopeless already. we did Considering that the place was grassy and tall talahib was growing therein the height of which not see Labong and Tipace called our attention telling us that this is the place through which could conceal persons in standing position appellant must have seen immediately that it was a Epifanio Labong passed. 49. I asked the rest of the prisoners provincial capitol and to return to jail after said work but appellants allowed them instead to as to where Epifanio Labong was." At the time he fired at Tipace and Abria. I just left him because I was looking for the rest. He saw the accused guarding the prisoners at about (b) For serious physical injuries (Case No. When he fired at Abria. — On October 3. "Because if it so happened that a prisoner escaped under my custody." It was Eusebio Abria. the bullet running or else lie down and give up your arm. Ignacio Lagata. He was the only prisoner he slapped. rec. Abria was shot when by the witnesses for then told them to stop because they were already far from me. 45. Epifanio Labong took advantage and escaped. "He was going up the mountain. I would be the one to be put in jail and if I cannot fire at him. Abria was shot when he was onlythree meter away from appellant and the latter Then I fired up to the air. (53-54). I told the prisoners to go to that spot. One day. He was Tipace. We went there and the go to the nursery to gather gabi without any apparent authority to do so. I will be the one to be put in jail. The witness did not Thousand Pesos (2. they were already far from here. Catbalogan. (72). "I did not discover that but to the negligence of the appellant. When we reached above. the prisoners were walking in line one meter from one to another. he saw Lagata in the nursery guarding six prisoners. The place was grassy.Finding him guilty. By the in three separate cases which have been tried jointly. "I followed them. married. "What was in my mind was that if I could overtake them and not fire at them." Ibanez testified against the The wound must have been produced by a gun shot. Tipace was also shot when he was about running towards the mountain. 39." The witness did not see the track of Epifanio Labong but the choice place for any prisoner that may want to escape. The witness saw Ibanez running before him towards the south road. The prisoners were just was facing the accused. (66). prisoner Eusebio Abria was brought to the hospital with a wound on the upper side of his left "The truth is that they ran away. I medical treatment to combat the shock caused by the hemorrhage and later the shoulder joint would meet the same situation as what other guards met under whose custody prisoners was disarticulated. married. The latter's allegation that Tipace was running — five meters from him. (70). the witness was already far. Very likely around five meters. but Ceferino Tipaceand Mariano Ibanez remained." After his arm was cut. Andres Saludario. (44). The treatment received by the witness fired at them because he sympathizes with other policemen from whom other witness from Lagata was good. When we reached up the is in accordance with law. he was informed that Epifanio Labong disappeared. "The patient was at first given resuscitating away. They scattered. One him to do would have to give his back to appellant. (63-64). He remained there until (c) For evasion through negligence (Case No. 1946. ten (10) days of prison correccional as maximum and pay the cost of this action. When he returned from the capitol and perpetual absolute disqualification. (77). Such negligence of appellant is prisoners." (80) The picking up of gabi was not part of the work of the prisoners. Samar Provincial Hospital. (61)." (67. 5. The grass in the place was knee-high. (57-59). serious physical injuries and evasion through negligence half a meter tall. nursery foreman. married. At the time. around the mango tree.000) and pay the costs of this action hear any gun shot explosion in the nursery. when he of two (2) year and four (4) month as minimum to four (4) year nine (9) month and came to the capitol building. prisoners escaped. Samar. The witness heard about the disappearance sentenced him as follows: of prisoner Epifanio Labong. however. (60). I saw conveying the idea that said prisoner was in the act of escaping — appears to be inconsistent him running.) mango tree about five meters from the prisoners. were the ones who indicated to him the place through which Epifanio punishable under article 224 of the Revised Penal code. Tipace was running side-wise to the accused and he could see where the accused was. 1946. place another prisoner called also our attention telling us that here is the place through which As regards the shooting of Abria and Tipace we are convinced that the facts were as narrated Labong passed and so went up. prisoners were ahead because they know the place. So I fired at him. 809) — Reclusion Perpetua with civil interdiction for life to several laborers detained at the capitol building. prosecution. chief. There was no possibility of saving Ibanez. he lost hope to recover Labong. and the penalty imposed by trial court Labong passed. (71). He slapped him two times.witness. 1. they were running arm which was amputated from the shoulder joint. The grass was about Appellant was charged with murder. He was watching all of them. (48). He with his own testimony to the effect that Tipace was running sidewise with his face looking was running towards me and then around me.

I called his attention and told him to stop from running or else lie downand give up your arm. concur. Even if appellant sincerely believe.The criminal responsibility of appellant regarding the killing of Tipace can be exacted from him on the basis of his own testimony. four months and one day of prision correccional.. C. Briones. concurs in the result.. Their is the burden of proof as to such necessity. Tuason and Reyes JJ. The record does not show that Tipace was bent on committing any act of aggression "he was running towards and then around me". Lagata could have fired at him in self defense or if absolutely necessary to avoid his escape. Human life is valuable albeit sacred. As recommended by the prosecuted appellants is entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance in paragraph5 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. While custodians of prisoners should necessity would authorize them to fire against them. 44 . (69). I would be the one to be put in jail and if I cannot fire at him I will be the one to be put in jail. (Emphasis ours) It is clear that Lagata had absolutely no reason to fire at Tipace.J. Moran. Feria. althougherroneously that in firing the shots be acted in the performance of his official duty the circumstances of the case show that there was no necessity for him to fire directly against the prisoners so as seriously wound one of them and kill instantaneously another." uttered by greatest pundit and prophet of Israel. (Emphasis ours) How could anyone in his senses imagine that Tipace intended to escape by running towards and around the very guard he was supposed to escape from? There is no question that the escape of Labong scared appellant according to him because of the experience of other guard who were dismissed from office or even prosecuted because of prisoners who had escaped under their custody and that it was his duty to fire against the prisoner if he wanted to be exempt from any responsibility. Twenty centuries of Christianity have not been enough to make less imperative the admonition that Thou shall not kill." (70). His direction while he was running not exactly towards me but running in front of me to the left side. The summary liquidation of Prisoner under flimsy pretexts of attempts of escape. Consequently appellant shouldbe sentenced for homicide to an indeterminate penalty of six years andone day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal and in the case of serious physical injuries to an indeterminate penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years. Inasmuch as he did not heed my advised so I fired at him. "If it so happened that a prisoner escaped under my custody. He did not heed my advice. appellant gave the following reason: "Because I sympathize with the other policeman from whom prisoners escaped. Cain has been the object of unrelentlesscurse for centuries and millennia and his name will always be remembered in shame as long as there are human generation able to read the Genesis. He was running towards me and then around me. which has been and is being practiced in dictatorial system of government has always been and is shocking to the universal conscience of humanity. Modified as above stated the appealed decision is affirmed with costs against appellant. The way he fired at Tipace ( whom he misnamed first as Ibañez) is described by appellant in the following words:. Explaining his reason for firing at Abria and Tipace." (71). Laws constitution world charters have been written to protect human life. Still it is imperative that all men be imbued with spirit of the Sermon on the Mount that the words of the gospels be translated into reality and that their meaning fill all horizon with the eternal aroma of encyclical love of mankind.

Epifanio Labong was missing so Lagata ordered the 5 remaining prisoners to Tipace was bent on committing any act of aggression or that he attempted to escape. Sanitary Division president. The record does not show that called to assemble. Mariano. he would be discharged from duty like the others. Not long afterwards. RPC)  The accused. chief of Samar Provincial Hospital & Gilberto Rosales. 2012 ESCAPING PRISONERS Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines  Court ruled that Lagata should be sentenced for homicide and serious physical injuries. Ignacio Lagata. How could anyone  Eusebio Abria said that while they were gathering gabi. He was wounded by the intending to escape run towards and around the very guard one was supposed to escape from? 2nd one.  Pedro Mayuga. Abria told Lagata he was wounded and in turn. LAGATA (1949) HELD: BY MAROON 5 PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES JUNE 1. the circumstances shot. said that he fired his gun because the prisoners were running far from him when he already ordered them to stop.  Another prisoner. only ABSOLUTE NECESSITY Lagata ordered to go look for him in the mountain. received good treatment from Lagata though his testimony corroborated those of the other prisoners. go look for him. the picking up of gabi was not part of the prisoner’s work.  According to Lagata himself. he heard 3 shots. Samar. seriously and even kill one of them.PEOPLE VS. Mariano said that when he saw Tipace was shot. Tipace. He said he ran away because he was afraid that he might be shot again and that his show that there was no necessity for him to fire directly against the prisoners as to wound them companions were also probably scared and that is why they ran. Defendant-Appellant: Ignacio Lagata  Appellant was entitled to the benefit of mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying FACTS: circumstance. They were already assembled by the 1st shot and that he did not see Tipace being  Even if Lagata sincerely believed that he acted in the performance of his duties. verified the gunshot wound and that the death of Tipace resulted therein. Ignacio Lagata fired at him and he was hit on his left arm. they were  It was clear that Lagata had absolutely no reason to fire at Tipace.11par. Once they were assembled.  Eustaquio Galet. When Abria told Lagata of the flattened grass and that he was unable to look for Labong. Mariano Ibañez stated that Epifanio Labong did not answer their call so Ignacio  While custodians should take care for prisoners not to escape. was in charge of 6 prisoners RATIO: (Jesus. Lagata told them to assemble. Labong & Abria) assigned to work in the capitol plaza of Samar. Tipace was running towards and around him. (Art. Furthermore. He was hopeless already. Lagata cocked his gun and shot Ceferino Tipace.5. Moreover.  Ignacio Lagata. another detainee. He said that Abria went to the camote would authorize them to fire against them. Eusebio.  Lagata ordered the prisoners to go to the nursery to pick up gabi. he ran away because he also could have been shot. He said that he would be the one in jail if a prisoner escaped under his custody. 45 . plantation and found footprints and called on Lagata to inform him about the footprints. a provincial guard of Catbalogan. however.

J. hitting of the house to the rooftop. Caballero vs.2 docketed as Criminal Case No. Caballero." There were several wounds caused by one (1) bullet. Mamangun pointed his . Diaz and Cruz.: vertebral column. hitting the man. Contreras with the said gun. the defense adduced in evidence the testimonies of the accused himself. with PO2 Eugenio Aminas and herein You know there are policemen here. Rufino PO2 Mamangun.R. with intent to kill. He was beside Mamangun when they saw. edge of the roof of the garage. Investigator whereat the suspect was allegedly taking refuge. at about 8:00 in the evening. namely. Mamangun fired his gun. The man turned out to be Gener Contreras (Contreras) who was not the G. the prosecution presented in evidence the testimonies of Crisanto Ayson left side unconscious. 2007 robbery suspect. upon receiving a telephone call that a robbery-holdup was in progress in Brgy. 21131. a man cause (sic) his death. This prompted Mamangun to shoot the person on the left arm. owner of the house on which rooftop the met each other at the other side of the tank. Mamangun reported the same to the desk officer. each armed with a drawn handgun.e. who instantly exclaimed. assault and shoot one Gener M. Benito B. duly assisted by a counsel de oficio. was charged before the armpit and the slug lodging on the victim’s back where it was recovered at the vertebral Sandiganbayan with the crime of Murder. and as testified on Silverio seeks the reversal of the Decision1 dated January 19. they saw a man whom they thought was the robbery suspect. the desk officer of the Meycauayan PNP Police attack. and those of Lorenzo S. petitioner Mamangun.3 Information. petitioner. continued to run in a crouching position until Mamangun caught up with him and shouted. attack. entered a hindi ako?" Before he (Ayson) could say anything. respectively. searched the rooftop. Tigil. Rufino S. 601 ako. as accused below. 149152 February 2. Hindi ako. Officer of Bulacan who performed an autopsy on the cadaver of the victim. pistol at the CONTRARY TO LAW. 1992. son and them. "Magnanakaw…Magnanakaw. That same evening. It is not disputed that on July 31. and that it was dark. found. being then a Police Officer (PO2). Diaz and Cruz) to the rooftop of Abacan’s house.net For its part. that instance. did then and policemen (Mamangun. He (witness) approached the victim who was then lying on his In the ensuing trial. man. PO2 Cruz pointed to a person crouching at the shooting of the victim took place. with PO2 Carlito Cruz and PO2 Hobert Diaz. the bullet entered the outer. Calvario. denied the presence of Ayson at the Mamangun. penetrating the left lung and GARCIA. yielded the following findings: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. all assigned at were the only ones at the scene of the shooting. Abacan and Rogelio Ingco.1awphi1. Petitioner." to which Mamangun replied. unlawfully and feloniously. Benito Caballero. about three (3) feet long on the depressed portion of the roof. They announced that they were police officers but the person Meycauayan. hindi ako!. allegedly committed. went on separate directions around a water tank. He brought down the victim and they rushed him to the hospital where (Ayson). "Why did you go to the rooftop? composed of Team Leader SPO1 Andres Legaspi. With the permission of Filomeno de Luna. "Hindi ako. the prosecution and the defense presented That on or about the 31st day of July 1992. armed with a gun. per the indicting column. petitioner Mamangun. Thinking that the person was the suspect they were looking for. At 46 . Banez allegedly found a steel pipe The three policemen. was only at this point that PO2 Cruz and Diaz approached Contreras who told them. 2001) of the Sandiganbayan in its Criminal Case No. fired his handgun once." whereupon the person suddenly stopped." Several residents responded and thereupon chased the suspect "Pulis. who advised him to remain in the police station. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. a public officer. and who entered the yard of Antonio Abacan and proceeded to the rooftop of Abacan’s house. Banez. Mamangun." who turned out to be Contreras. i. the lone eyewitness for the prosecution. herein petitioner. then the designated Medico-Legal he died at about 10:00 o’clock that same evening. in Brgy. along with PO2 Cruz and PO2Diaz. No. left side of the 13. De Luna directed Police Abacan. After the shooting incident. petitioner Rufino Mamangun y As shown on the sketch of human body attached to the Certificate of Death. POI Sandiego San Gabriel. MAMANGUN. turned around. He was following there willfully. his co-policemen at the Philippine National Police (PNP). Philippines. Corroborating one another. All three claimed that it Station. In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They claimed that each of the Meycauayan Police Station. PO2 Diaz and PO2 Cruz went to the rooftop of the house Investigator Hernando Banez to investigate the incident. hitting the man plea of "Not Guilty. thereby inflicting (sic) him serious physical injuries which directly house. with Mamangun on the lead. of Antonio Abacan. as follows: From the foregoing admitted or undisputed facts." Mamangun went near Contreras and asked." From a layman’s appreciation of the sketch." Contreras was thereafter brought to the hospital where petitioner PO2 Rufino S. PO2 Carlito rooftop during the shooting incident. Bulacan a certain Liberty Contreras was heard shouting. and Patrol Car No. a little lower than the left On September 12. with treachery. duly appointed as According to Ayson. petitioner.. upper left arm The factual backdrop: of the victim. exited through the inner side of the said upper left arm. There. PO4 Hobert O. then a police officer. immediately contacted and dispatched to the scene the crew of Patrol Car No. the said accused happened. They passed through the second-floor door superior strength. raised a stainless steel pipe towards the latter’s head but Mamangun was able to evade the At about 9:00 o’clock that same evening. "Anong On arraignment. whom he (witness) recognized as Gener Contreras. RUFINO S. 602 composed of Team Leader PO3 he died. 21131. he accompanied the three such and acting in relation to his office. in the Municipality of Meycauyan.45 cal. The defense has its own account of what purportedly actually transpired. The autopsy conducted by Dr. Banez went to the place where the shooting happened. The cause of death was "Shock due to massive external and internal hemorrhage due to DECISION multiple gunshot wounds in the left arm side of the thorax. Mamangun. an alleged eyewitness. convicting him of the crime thorax and it penetrated the left lung and vertebral column and that is where the slug was of Homicide. Mamangun chased said person. 2001 (promulgated on February by Dr. (sic) Province conflicting versions as to how the fatal shooting of Contreras by petitioner Mamangun actually of Bulacan. Diaz and Police Investigator SPO-1 Hernando B. Contreras died from the gunshot wound. 1994. As they son-in-law. some four to five arms-length away. "Hindi Calvario. the three testified that they Cruz. evident premeditation and abuse of petitioner Mamangun who was ahead of the group. and Dr. faced Mamangun. The roof was lighted by an incandescent bulb from an adjacent the latter on his body. Respondent. the bullet entered through the "lower third of the left arm. who was walking ahead of the group.

Petitioner. where the victim was shot. and as to whether Ayson left his house after the shooting incident." He admits that he performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. Hindi po ako" before the petitioner fatally shot him on the left arm. 7 was to bring with him to the police station the very pipe with which Contreras tried to attack Concededly. the decision reads: credibility. and taking into account the attendance of one (1) privileged mitigation (sic) started chasing the man they saw "crouching. to indemnify the heirs (parents) of Gener Contreras in Contreras and admittedly not the person they were looking for. defined and penalized under Article 249. where he As we see it. petitioner insists that the shooting. the accused. which could Penal Code may be invoked only after the defense successfully proves that: (1) the accused have justified petitioner’s shooting him. one generic circumstance and no aggravating circumstance. who was then behind the petitioner when the latter shot Contreras. the first requisite is present in this case. that man. is. after due proceedings. as maximum. was him.e. around and attack one of the three policemen who were chasing him. (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken. But even as the said court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the shooting Besides being self-serving (with respect to the accused) and biased (with respect to his co- was justified by self-defense." and circumstances of treachery. for the accused was then about to strike him on the head with a steel pipe. it was only after a police investigator referred to the responding to a robbery-holdup incident. a police officer. i. (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts and the findings of the victim must have instinctively shielded his body with his left arm. "Why did you try to hit me. is hereby found GUILTY beyond (1) We have no doubt that. that. the petitioner even responded. he is hereby Rufino Mamangun. recourse alleging that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in failing to apply (2) When the victim (Gener Contreras) fell down after being shot by accused PO2 paragraph 5. "Why criminal liability on the basis of his submission that the shooting in question was done in the did you go to the rooftop. fact are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on Moreover.5None of these exceptions obtains in this case. reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. RUFINO S. evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength to qualify the immediately shot Contreras. it nonetheless ruled that the crime of Homicide was attended by policemen-witnesses). We have held time and again that few discrepancies We see no plausible basis to depart from the Sandiganbayan’s findings that there was no and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to minor details and not in actuality reason for the petitioner to shoot Contreras. Indeed. Such a vital information could not have escaped the petitioner’s The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5. as Contreras attacked the accused policeman with an iron pipe when he was shot. as claimed by PO2 Carlito Cruz and PO2 Hobert Diaz. the Sandiganbayan came out with its "Hindi po ako. Prosecution decision4 finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only the crime of Homicide. (3) The location of the entry of the bullet fired by accused Mamangun which is at Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon the the outer left arm at about the bicep of the victim and its trajectory as it penetrated Court except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations. Article II. We are not persuaded. As borne by the evidence. of the Revised Penal Code. You know there are policemen here.8 As correctly observed by the Sandiganbayan: killing to Murder. As it record. are but minor details with a steel pipe was a mere afterthought to exempt him from criminal liability. accordance with the performance of his duty. petitioner is now with this Court via the present other. with drawn guns. the Sandiganbayan did not appreciate the presence of the aggravating that to the victim’s utterances. for the following reasons: WHEREFORE. as he was about to catch up with said man. if you are not the one?" This First off. trying to hit him with a pipe. later identified to be Gener years of prision mayor. said accused asked. which ultimately caused the demise of Contreras. and (2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is the liability. Quite the contrary. admission clearly belies the claim of the police-witnesses that Gener Contreras was justified because he was repelling Contreras’ unlawful attack on his person. petitioner’s pretense that Contreras struck him with a steel pipe is intriguing. as claimed by accused PO2 circumstance. 47 . the least that the petitioner should have done necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of such duty. one after the Unable to accept the judgment of conviction. was nothing but a concocted story to evade criminal acted in the performance of a duty. as instead abuse of discretion. His presence at the situs of the crime was in scene that the lead pipe surfaced. (3) there is grave the victim was facing him and had just missed his head with an iron pipe. sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. petitioner did not report the same to Police Investigator Banez when he reported back to the Having admitted6 the fatal shooting of Contreras on the night of July 31. his body hitting his vital organs along the way belies the claim of the accused that surmises and conjectures. We are thus inclined to believe that the alleged actuation of Contreras. turn SO ORDERED. petitioner’s posturing that he shot Contreras because the latter tried to strike him died. and as the latter went near the fallen victim. It was only when a lead pipe was recovered from the charged with the burden of adducing convincing evidence to show that the killing was done in scene and brought to the police station that petitioner conveniently remembered Contreras the fulfillment of his duty as a policeman. he shouted. it is utterly incredible from Three (3) Years and Three (3) Months of prision correctional as minimum. The alleged contradictions cited by the petitioner. "Anong hindi ako. MAMANGUN. only with a stainless steel "lead" pipe (more of a rod) would suddenly stop. to be of doubtful voluntary surrender. to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of "Pulis! Tigil!" With all these introductions and forewarnings. proof that the shooting and ultimate Petitioner would likewise argue that the testimony of prosecution witness Ayson was death of Contreras was a necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty as a incredible and riddled with inconsistencies. testified In so finding. However. to Seven (7) and contrary to human experience that. policeman is essential to exempt him from criminal liability. do not impair his credibility. purportedly armed the total amount of P352. which would have absolved him from Mamangun. petitioner is police station after the shooting incident.On January 19." and. and also appreciated in his favor the generic mitigating circumstance of identification of the stainless steel pipe (more of a rod) as his weapon. knowing that he shot Contreras. and to past the costs. 1992. The latter was unarmed and had already uttered. of the Revised mind. 2001. which do not affect Ayson’s credibility. Dispositively. We find (1) the claim of the accused and his co-policemen-witnesses an incomplete justifying circumstance of the petitioner having acted in the performance of his that the victim (Contreras) attacked the said accused and (2) their seemingly "positive" duty as a policeman. however. Article 11. did not ask the victim.025. witness Ayson.00. touching upon the central fact of the crime. Revised the three policemen appropriately identified themselves as police officers as they Penal Code. should have asked the latter question.

complete or incomplete. Hindi ako. the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED in all respects. Petitioner could have first fired a warning shot before pulling the trigger against Contreras who was one of the residents chasing the suspected robber. must have to fail. No pronouncement as to costs. petitioner. To be sure. was performing his duty as a police officer as well as when he was trying to effect the arrest of the suspected robber and in the process. Ayson explained that he was not able to utter any word because when Contreras said "Hindi ako.11 Ayson also testified that when the victim was shot by the petitioner. a privileged mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the Revised Penal Code. do not completely justify the petitioner’s firing the fatal gunshot at the victim. As to where the victim died." petitioner suddenly fired at the latter. petitioner’s plea of self-defense. we find no reversible error committed by the Sandiganbayan in convicting the petitioner of the crime of Homicide attended by the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance of having acted in the performance of his duty as a policeman and the generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. from the above admitted. whether complete or incomplete. Ayson and Contreras were already pursuing the robber.such minor inconsistencies even tend to strengthen credibility because they discount the possibility that the testimony was rehearsed. the record reveals that Ayson’s answers to the questions propounded by the defense counsel are clear and categorical. SO ORDERED. True.12 Self-defense. in the absence of the equally necessary justifying circumstance that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty. acts in the fulfillment of a duty. Lacking this essential and primary element of unlawful aggression. uncontroverted or established facts. IN VIEW WHEREOF. All told. albeit the wrong man. the most important element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim to justify a claim of self defense was absent. that he did not leave his house after the incident because he was afraid that the policemen would detain him. There can be no quibbling that there was no rational necessity for the killing of Contreras. cannot be appreciated as a valid justifying circumstance in this case. As to why he was not able to warn Mamangun that the victim was his relative. 48 . However. without more. record shows that the robbery-holdup happened at around 8:00 in the evening.9 For sure.10 As to the claim that Ayson was also on the roof. fatally shoot said suspect. Ayson clarified that the victim was already at the rooftop even before the arrival of the police officers. there can only be incomplete justification. For. the former fell on his left side unconscious. as one of the policemen responding to a reported robbery then in progress. Before the policemen arrived.

49 . Mamangun pointed his gun at the man. hindi ako” only when they approached him. with his fellow police officers. each armed with a drawn handgun. Per Sandiganbayan’s observations. According to the lone witness Crisanto Ayson. who was ahead of the group. MAMANGUN V PEOPLE Acts in the fulfillment of duty and self-defense does not completely justify the petitioner’s firing the fatal gunshot. who instantly exclaimed “Hindi ako. He was beside Mamangun when he (Ayson) recognized the deceased. GR No. with PO2 Diaz and Cruz. tigil!” whereupon the person stopped and raised a steel pipe towards Mamangun’s head. fired his gun once and hit the man. it is contrary to human experience for a man (who is not the suspect) to attack one of three policemen with drawn guns 2. he accompanied the policemen to the lighted rooftop. The defense rejects this testimony. Mamangun then asked “Why did you go to the rooftop? You know there are policemen here.” Mamangun reported the incident to the desk officer who directed investigator Hernando Banez to investigate the incident. who entered the yard and proceeded to the rooftop of Antonio Abacan. The three police claim that Contreras only said “Hindi ako. Banez later on found a steel pipe on the roof. alleging that they were the only ones at the dark rooftop when Mamangun noticed a crouching man who suddenly continued to run. at Brgy. Calvario. Bulacan. who turned out to be Gener Contreras (not the suspect) – Contreras died of the gunshot wound. there can only be incomplete 11FEB justification (a privileged mitigating circumstance) in the absence of a necessary justifying circumstance the injury was caused by necessary consequence of due performance of duty. The element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was absent. Also. Mamangun. The Court denies the instant petition and affirms Sandiganbayan’s decision after finding the petitioner’s testimony to be nothing but a concocted story designed to evade criminal liability. After supposed introductions and forewarnings uttered allegedly by Mamangun. Garcia Fulfillment of Duty/Lawful Exercise of Right Facts: Policeman (PO2) Rufino Mamangun was responding to a robbery-holdup call. Mamangun’s admission that he did not ask the victim “Why did you try to hit me. According to Ayson. Mamangun shouted “Pulis. petitioner’s pretense that Contreras struck him was not initially reported to the desk and was only conveniently remembered when the investigator found a pipe in the crime scene. which prompted residents to respond and chase the suspect. This prompted Mamangun to shoot the person. Issue: W/N the death of the victim was the necessary consequence of the petitioner’s fulfillment of his duty Held: No. 2007 | J. A certain Liberty Contreras was heard shouting. which leads to the failure of the petitioner’s plea. if you are not the one?” clearly belies their claim 3. searched the rooftop and saw a man who they thought was the robbery suspect. 149152 | February 2. hindi ako!” to which Mamangun replied. The location of the entry of bullet belies their claim because it appears that the victim instinctively shielded himself instead Additionally. “Anong hindi ako?” and shot him. Mamangun. Meycauayan. the defense was self-serving for the accused and biased with respect to his co-policemen-witnesses because: 1.

00 as funeral and burial expenses. Then suddenly. Santiano then shot Javier from a ARE GUILTY OF MURDER.M. Recto The appellants appealed to the CA and assigned the following errors: Avenue.000. III Dagani approached Javier who had been striking a bottle of beer on the table. thereby inflicting upon the said ERNESTO aggression was present on the part of the victim. while DUTY. who were security officers of the PNR I and covered by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations. No.38 caliber revolver. Plaintiff-Appellee. RPC.4 distance of less than four meters. Lincoln Miran (Miran). The RTC rendered its Decision. The award for attorney’s fees and appearance fees for counsel treachery and conspiracy.3 appellants Otello Santiano y Leonida (Santiano) and Rolando Dagani y Reyes (Dagani) guilty In brief. since it was not established that Javier death thereafter. and two other individuals had been drinking at the canteen be appreciated in favor of the appellants. Dagani "controlled" the hands of Javier and conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other did then and there. dated February 18. that. trigger of the . P30. located inside the compound of the Philippine National Railways (PNR) along C. but the gun failed to go off.00 as ROLANDO DAGANI y REYES and OTELLO SANTIANO Y LEONIDA. x.00 as and for [sic] attorney’s fees and the further sum of P1. that the appellants failed to produce the two empty shells as willfully. Both accused are hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P50. with the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and granting them the benefit of [the] Indeterminate Sentence Law. WHEREFORE. killing the latter. Manila. so he decided to rush into the canteen. unlawfully and feloniously. WAS CONSPIRACY. entered the canteen and approached THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING SELF DEFENSE ON the group. physical evidence of the gunfire allegedly caused by Javier.2 consequence of the due performance of an official duty. that the appellants were acting in Upon arraignment.22 caliber gun when he pointed it at Dagani. Muntinlupa. in light of these findings. All of a sudden. Appellant Dagani shoved Miran. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing. no unlawful and there shooting him with a . the gun went off. 1989. that the appellants failed to prove that they JAVIER Y FELIX mortal gunshot wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his were on official duty at the time of the incidence. finding both accused Otello Santiano y Leonida and Rolando Dagani y Reyes SO ORDERED.R. the sum of Appellants. the danger to the life of the accused ceased That on or about September 11. Upon reaching the place. vs. in the City of Manila. Philippines. Metro which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila. the appealed judgment of conviction is MODIFIED. that during the course of the The accusatory portion of the Information reads: struggle for the possession of the . J. that. assault and use of personal violence upon one ERNESTO JAVIER Y FELIX by then markings on the walls of the canteen were shown. the said accused to be imminent. the sum of P31. 89-77467. a group composed of Ernesto Javier balance and about to fall. 1989. are hereby deleted. 2002 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) accused are hereby committed to the Director. Branch 12 Manila for service of Sentence. to enter. while outside the canteen. Javier then THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY AND SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE pulled out a .22 caliber revolver and attempted to fire at Dagani.845. from his vantage point. the appellants pleaded not guilty. then held Javier while Santiano shot Javier twice at his left side. In all the other aspects. actually fired his gun. the appealed decision is maintained. finding the accused- SO ORDERED. 2006 mayor as minimum. Appellants are hereby official duty as PNR security officers. the dispositive portion of which reads: Let the entire records of the case be elevated to the Supreme Court for the mandated review. both accused are hereby sentenced to FIRST DIVISION each suffer an Indeterminate prison term of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision G. and that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should (Javier). Dagani. causing the latter to fall from his chair. Accused- death indemnity. He heard WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ACCUSED Javier’s gun fire again. 248. evident premeditation and treachery. 153875 August 16. II The defense proceeded to prove their version of the facts: THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT Appellants testified that they were ordered by their desk officer to investigate a commotion at THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE IN LAWFUL PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL the canteen. appellants. forcing Santiano to fire a warning shot. Santiano heard gunfire and. The CA rendered its Decision.22 caliber gun. Dagani THE PART OF THE ACCUSED. Santiano ordered his co-accused.5 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and punished under Art.00 per appearance of DECISION counsel. 50 . considering that adduced evidence to establish the following: Javier had been shot while his hands were being held by Dagani and as his body was out of At about 4:45 in the afternoon of September 11. 1993.22 caliber gun which belonged to Javier. National Penitentiary. with intent to kill. the dispositive portion of which states: Appellants invoked the justifying circumstances of self-defense and lawful performance of WHEREFORE. pushed them away from his body. the injury inflicted upon him cannot be regarded as a necessary CONTRARY TO LAW.000.: Both accused shall be credited with the full extent of their preventive imprisonment.000. Both For review before the Court is the Decision dated June 20. Trial ensued where the prosecution conspiracy. During the THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION course of the struggle. They also argued that the prosecution failed to establish sentenced to reclusion perpetua. that in grappling for the weapon. the former waited outside. IV he saw Javier and Dagani grappling for a . in Criminal Case No. the RTC held that appellants failed to prove that Javier attempted to squeeze the of the crime of Murder. that no points of entry or bullet attack. (RTC). Tondo. to EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal x x PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

finds no Unlawful aggression. When successful. the latter could not be found and have jumped bail. the grave peril envisaged by appellant Santiano. mere threatening or intimidating attitude11 – but most importantly. even when the alleged unlawful aggression had already ceased. as admitted by the appellants. not just speculative. had unlawful aggression are reasonable and necessary. there was indivisible penalty to be imposed in its entirety. Santiano went law officers to locate the appellants. Moreover. (2) reasonable necessity of doubtful. There is aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person who acts in the fulfillment of a real and immediate threat to one’s life. as attack.12 To invoke self-defense successfully. that the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and former "could have easily killed the latter. Like alibi.22 caliber pistol were found and no bullets were recovered from the scene of the As found by the CA: incident. reversible error on the part of the courts a quo in rejecting the claim of self-defense.14 requisites must concur before this defense can prosper: 1) the accused must have acted in the To sum up the matter. there must have canteen in response to a telephone call stating that there was a group "creating trouble. was reclusion perpetua which is an grappled for the gun with the latter. them away from his body. which impelled him to As of date.9 wounds.22 that Dagani was able to restrain the hands of Javier and push We are not convinced. such as the nature and peace officers such as the accused. at the time of the incident. regardless of the attending mitigating no longer any unlawful aggression circumstance of voluntary surrender." that.16 When an unlawful aggression that has begun Appellants are now before this Court submitting for resolution the same matters argued before no longer exists." that been an they were in the call of duty and exercising their functions and responsibilities as members of unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused. the records show that despite the efforts exerted by the surety and the responsible fire at the victim. but appellant Dagani’s account of the incident to be incredible and self-serving. would presuppose an actual. 2003. as experience has provocation on the part of the person defending himself.The CA affirmed the findings of fact as well as the salient portions of the RTC Decision.28 This Court. After the victim had been thrown off-balance.13 security officers in the performance of duty. injuries on Javier. Even if it were established that Javier fired his gun as the appellants so insist."8 and that Javier actually fired three shots from his . Having owned the killing of the victim. and 2) the injury caused or The defense was unable to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of Javier. the RTC failed to justify this award in the body of its Decision. like the police.26 this extenuating circumstance.22 number of gunshot wounds sustained by the victim21 which amounted to two fatal caliber gun.25 do not justify appellant Santiano’s act of fatally shooting the victim twice. an otherwise felonious deed would be excused. "could have easily killed" the appellants are uncertain and ordinarily may be offered in self-defense. 10 demonstrated. 7 beyond the call of self-preservation when he proceeded to inflict the excessive and fatal The appeal is partly meritorious. the imminence And last. mainly predicated evidence. defense. No spent shells exercise. Through their Manifestation dated February 11. given the fact that Javier had been drinking. we quote the findings of the CA: performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. and. a primordial element of self-defense.24 and Javier. What the law requires is rational equivalence. the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) hand-to- killing was legally justified.20 The circumstances in their entirety "it is quite probable for Javier to act harshly and aggressively towards which surround the grappling of the firearm by Dagani and Javier. at the time the defensive They specifically aver that they had been ordered by their desk officer to proceed to the action was taken against the aggressor. invoking jurisprudence. additionally. Javier also tested negative for gunpowder residue. the trial court found 51 . 19 Appellants argue that the courts a quo misappreciated the facts and erred in finding that there The second element of self-defense demands that the means employed to neutralize the was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. In sum. It is settled that reasonable necessity of the been armed with a revolver at the time he was struggling with appellant Dagani.17 When Javier had been caught in the struggle for the possession of the gun with the filing of additional briefs.23 that Dagani was larger than Javier and had finished Special When self-defense is invoked.31 These requisites are absent in the instant case.18 and undoubtedly. with appellant Dagani. it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. He must discharge this burden by clear and convincing All things considered. the the means employed to prevent or repel that unlawful aggression.30 speculative. during the course of overcome the opponent. the instant case is criminal in nature which is under the control of the public requisites. Self-defense requires that there be (1) an uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is in itself extremely unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed by the offender.15 prosecutor. and (3) lack of sufficient affirmative defense of self-defense is inherently weak because. the accused should be hand combat training. that would have necessitated the act of killing. the assertions that it was "quite probable" that Javier. the appellants’ plea of self-defense is not corroborated by competent evidence.29 and that. the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even to wound the the CA. They insist that the victim. who was then forced the PNR Civil Security Office to preserve peace and order and to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the protect the lives and property in the PNR Compound. Two actual. Javier. the deleted the award of attorney’s fees and the per appearance fees of counsel since. the defense presented a bare claim of self-defense without any proof of the existence of its CA reasoned. therefore. had then ceased to a reasonable extent. the offense committed should have been the necessary consequence of such lawful They were unable to present evidence that the victim actually fired his gun. 6 appellants prayed to dispense former aggressor.27 Whether the accused acted in self-defense is a question of fact. All these conditions must concur. was inebriated at the time of able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court the elements of self-defense in order to avail of the incident. the CA found that the RTC erroneously applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law of the danger to their lives had already ceased the moment Dagani held down the victim and since the penalty for Murder. sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person – not a Appellants set up the defense that they were in the lawful performance of their official duties. from the . and the force that may be exerted must differ from that which the struggle for the firearm. The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only on the lack of criminal intent of the accused. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any criminal liability. they must stand their ground and In the instant case.

That Dagani did not expect Santiano to shoot the victim had been drinking immediately prior to the scuffle.47 The means employed for the While no formal agreement is necessary to establish conspiracy because conspiracy may be commission of the crime or the mode of attack must be shown to have been consciously or inferred from the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. The [T]he Court believes that Javier was shot while his body was out-balanced and about to fall to law does not clothe police officers with authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill. therefore. and (2) that such means. and from 7:00 p. the injury inflicted upon him presented to show that the appellants planned to kill Javier or that Dagani’s overt acts cannot be regarded as a necessary consequence of appellants’ due performance of an official facilitated that alleged plan. the trial court held that Javier could not be considered to dictates of a sound discretion. latter accidentally fell and was rendered defenseless. namely: (1) that the means. from 7:00 a.44 x x x conspiracy. and within the spirit and purpose of the law. 42 And since Dagani’s the performance of his duty as a PNR security officer. conditions which made it impossible for him to evade the attack. countenance trigger-happy law enforcement officers who indiscriminately employ force and It has been held that when an assault is made with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and violence upon the persons they are apprehending. The trial court gave weight to the fact that the appellants were unable to submit alone does not satisfy the requirement of conspiracy because the rule is that their daily time records to show that they were on duty at the time. but within reasonable limits. conspiracy is present. but legal. No evidence was Moreover. Javier was simultaneously attacked.37 This Court has held that the suddenness of the attack. this Court is overwhelm their opponents. 40 Thus.m. Treachery is present when two conditions held by Dagani. without risk to the offender arising from the simultaneous/concerted action and considering that Javier was shot by Santiano while being defense which the intended victim might raise.45 purpose and design by the appellants. The RTC declared: circumstances indicating that the offender cannot otherwise be taken without bloodshed. the sudden attack must have been preconceived by the accused. the vulnerable position of the victim at the time the attack was made.35 act is properly qualified as treachery. We cannot be an armed man as he was being held down and was virtually helpless. flee or make [a] defense. this Court holds that the fatal injuries that is established when Santiano testified that Dagani "seem[ed] to be shocked. to 7:00 a. In the The findings of the court a quo clearly showed that Javier was being held down and could not absence of a clear and legal provision to the contrary.m. methods and Moreover. do not by themselves render the shot by one of the accused while being held by a co-accused. there is no other evidence that attack as treacherous. It follows that the liability of the accused must be determined on an individual basis. methods or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which The Information cited conspiracy of the accused. the infliction of the wound from behind Courts must judge the guilt or innocence of the accused based on facts and not on mere the victim.16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate The RTC simply held: employment of means. However. and the homicide resulting therefrom is classified as But this Court cannot agree with the findings of the courts a quo that the appellants were in murder. under jurisprudence. even assuming that 7:00 p. The prosecution had the burden to show Dagani’s neutralized when Dagani grappled with Javier and restrained his hands. he was standing appellant Santiano inflicted on the victim cannot be deemed to be necessary consequences of and looking at the victim" as Javier gradually fell to the ground. or the fact conjectures. that Dagani had been specially trained for these purposes. the killing was attended by the qualifying situation where an immediate and decisive. It the right side and while his hands were being held by Dagani.34 this Court counseled: constrained to acquit him. The prosecution did not establish that the act of Dagani in trying duty.39 time eliminate or reduce the risk of retaliation from the intended victim.33 While it is recognized that police conviction can only be sustained if the crime had been carried out through a conspiracy duly officers – if indeed the appellants can be likened to them – must stand their ground and proven. and under And this Court cannot say that treachery attended the attack. such circumstance at the canteen. Ulep.m. unexpected 52 . methods and forms of execution employed gave the person The tenor of the factual findings of the CA is equally unsatisfactory: attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. the facts show that Javier was shot by appellant Santiano as he was being subdued forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger by appellant Dagani. The trial court held that the manner of the attack was indicative of a joint to his person. hence.32 to wrestle the gun from Javier and in the process.43 stressed that the judgment and discretion of police officers in the performance of their duties which the CA affirmed as follows: must be exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively. Since it can also be committed thru tend directly and specially to insure its execution. 36 concur. The right to kill an offender is not absolute. presumptions.The defense failed to prove that the security officers were in fact on duty at the time they were This Court has held that even if all the malefactors joined in the killing. in view of the failure of the prosecution to discharge that burden. Javier. They must always bear in mind that unsuspecting victim who [was] given no immediate provocation for the attack and under although they are dealing with criminal elements against whom society must be protected.38 Other than the plain fact that the victim had been that the victim was unarmed. Conspiracy must they were ordered to go on 24-hour duty was belied by PNR Security Investigator Rolando be shown to exist Marinay’s testimony that PNR security officers work in two 12-hour shifts. yet. in People v. Appellants’ assertion that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy. that Javier had been intentional participation to the furtherance of a common design and purpose41 or that his action thrown off-balance. As such. the these criminals are also human beings with human rights. this does not prove conspiracy.m. since it was not established that Javier fired his gun. and that Javier was all part of a scheme to kill Javier. was shot at may be true that police officers sometimes find themselves in a dilemma when pressured by a when he has no means to defend himself. action is needed. held the latter’s hands. to as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. conspiracy must deliberately adopted by the accused to insure the consummation of the crime and at the same be established by clear and convincing evidence. 48 For the rules on treachery to apply. Treachery under par. they must act in conformity with the effectively use his weapon. and may be used only as a last resort.46 This is of particular significance in a case of an instantaneous attack the appellants were animated by the same purpose or were moved by a previous common made by the accused whereby he gained an advantageous position over the victim when the accord. considering that the imminent or actual danger to the life of the appellants had been of enabling Santiano to shoot at Javier. or suspicions. was for the purpose As stated. it must be circumstance of treachery.

CR No. the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. prevailing jurisprudence entitles the heirs of the deceased to the amount of P50. is not entitled to the Like the rules on conspiracy. Appellant Santiano shall be credited with the full extent of his shown beyond reasonable doubt that the means employed gave the victim no opportunity to preventive imprisonment. the widow of the victim. The Office of the Solicitor General is correct in that the courts a quo failed to consider the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position under Article 14 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. 59 The prosecution failed to convincingly prove that the assault by the appellants had been Inasmuch as the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position attended the deliberately adopted as a mode of attack intended to insure the killing of Javier and without killing. as amended. to fourteen (14) years.000. Accordingly. 50 result of her husband’s death.00 as funeral and burial expenses. eight (8) months. As already stated. without danger to the life of the accused. as duly appreciated by the courts a quo. This Court hereby fixes it to be from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum.by the victim. Appellant though struggling.00 as exemplary the attack. do not by themselves make the attack treacherous.000. under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. or yet even the fact damages. As to moral damages. pursuant to Article 64 (4) of the aforesaid Code. years.00 as attorney’s fees and P1. 15304 dated June gun.58 53 . or the vulnerable position of the victim at the time of the attack. 2002 is MODIFIED. therefore. the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. any doubt as to its existence must be resolved in favor of Santiano. 51 It must be per appearance of counsel. no other fact had been adduced to show that the appellants consciously planned or 20. since the accused. P30. 53 Considering the rule that treachery cannot be inferred but must be proved as fully and convincingly as the crime itself. Other than the bare fact that Santiano shot Articles 2230 and 2234 of the Civil Code and prevailing jurisprudence. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.54 The penalty.000. this appeal opens the entire case for review and.000. Erlinda Javier. defend himself or retaliate.56 The CA erred in deleting the attorney’s fees and per appearance fees for lack of factual basis. a PNR security officer covered by the Civil Service. the records show that the foregoing amounts had been stipulated by the parties. the Court is inclined to look upon the helpless position of Javier as merely incidental to the attack. and a maximum which is anywhere within reclusion temporal in its medium period. the Court awards exemplary damages in the amount of P25. the sentence of appellant Santiano will consist of a minimum that is anywhere within the full range of prision mayor.000. had not been Santiano is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of P50. is reclusion temporal.845. however. Appellant Otello Santiano y Leonida is found GUILTY beyond predetermined the methods to insure the commission of the crime.R. shall be offset against the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position. Although the CA is correct in noting that the RTC failed to justify these awards in the body of its Decision.22 caliber WHEREFORE.57 thereby dispensing with the need to prove the same. and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim without need of any evidence or proof of damages. P25. 60 Javier while the latter had been struggling with Dagani over the possession of the .52 For these reasons.00 that the victim was unarmed. nor had the risk of the reasonable doubt of Homicide and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of an indeterminate victim to sentence from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) retaliate been eliminated during the course of the struggle over the weapon. and that the decision to shoot Javier was made in an instant.55Considering that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. committed the crime with the aid of a gun he had been authorized to carry as such. this Court must emphasize that the mere suddenness of indemnity. No other heirs of Javier testified in the same manner. for failure of the prosecution to prove treachery to qualify the killing to Murder. P31. eight (8) months.00 as death completely subdued. 49 Treachery is never presumed. as maximum. appellant Santiano may only be convicted of Homicide. and without provocation on the part of the latter. accordingly. She did not testify on any mental anguish or emotional distress which she suffered as a been attended by treachery as conclusively as the crime itself. and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.00 in accordance with the latter having the opportunity to defend himself.000. As to the award of damages. it is required that the manner of attack must be shown to have same. and that such means had been deliberately or consciously adopted Appellant Rolando Dagani y Reyes is hereby ACQUITTED. as the latter.

. Jovito Barreras voluntarily appeared and served as counsel for Borjal. 15TH INFANTRY. (Exhibit 8. and Benjamin Adriatico. H. placed Borjal under custody and asked the query from Higher Headquarters regarding same. Immediately after the execution. Returned herewith are the papers on the case of Arsenio Borjal. plaintiff-appellee.-Colonel.: Received April 18. and Father Filipino Velasco as an alleged conspirator. Servillano Afos. Benjamin Adriatico. Military Mayor.L. The trial lasted 19 days up to (Sgd. Charges Against THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. charges of espionage. the jury found Borjal guilty on all accounts and imposed upon him instruction Military Mayor. Valera. USAFIP Luzon. He also received from the 22 April 1945 Headquarters of the 15th Infantry a list of all puppet government officials of the province of Abra (which included Arsenio Borjal. Benjamin Abella. POLICARPIO PACULDO. aiding the doubt as to the treasonable acts of the accused Arsenio Borjal and I know that your enemy. Beronilla. Received your letter dated 18 April 1945. Servillano Afos. defendants-appellants. Col. R. Consequently. 15th Infantry. REYES. Filipino Velasco. vs. Pedro Turqueza. and on the night of the same day. Mayor Beronilla forwarded the records of the case to the Headquarters of (Exhibit 21. Policarpio Paculdo as Clerk of the April 18. H. I believe there was no residents of La Paz to file complaints against him. 1945 with the following instructions: jury. Abra 70) convicting them of murder for the execution of Arsenio Borjal in the evening of April 18. de los Angeles and Commanding Martiniano P. Abra. Abra from his superiors. Commanding and Lino Inovermo as counsel for the accused. La Paz. Beronilla ordered the execution of Borjal. Atty. Benjamin Abella. La Paz.. Felix Murphy. Delfin Labuguen.. In no time. 21-a) the 15th Infantry for review. Said records were returned by Lt. subject. Arnold who in regimental commander of the 15th Infantry. On December 18. Province of Abra. and Delfin Labuguen as members. Father Filipino Velasco of the Aglipayan Church performed the last rites over Borjal's appellant Manuel Beronilla was appointed Military Mayor of La Paz by Lt. Arsenio Borjal returned to La Paz with his family in order to escape the bombing 2. PA Alverne and Juan Balmaceda were named prosecutors. Col. Felix Alverne and Juan Balmaceda as prosecutors. Abra. Agripino A. Santiago Casal. Sgt. 398 instructing all Military Mayors to investigate said persons and gather against them complaints Subject: Report and information Re Borjal case from people of the municipality for collaboration with the enemy (Exhibit 12-a). Manuel Beronilla as military mayor. J. Sanidad and Claro M. (Sgd. at the outbreak of war. ARNOLD Labuguen. Arnold to Beronilla on Two years thereafter. 1944. To: Military Mayor Beronilla Sometime in March. Arnold to all Military Mayors in Northern 15TH INFANTRY. J. pursuant to his instructions. several days upon instructions of Headquarters. ARNOLD Prospero C. Mariano Ajel. MANUEL BERONILLA. 1947 7:00 a. Father Luding of to serve as Mayor during the Japanese occupation. Felimon (Sgd. with a memorandum Msg.R. for allegedly conspiring and confederating in the execution of Arsenio 54 . Felix Murphy. 1943. Beronilla reported the matter to Col. Recto for defendant. make of the case is hereby approved. in progress. In the Field espionage.m. Eufemio and Bernardez for appellants. 1945. 1. HEADQUARTERS 3RD MILITARY DISTRICT Filemon Labuguen. while the operations for the liberation of the province of Abra were 1. Actually. No.) MANUEL BERONILLA April 10. Brillantes. Beronilla HEADQUARTERS 3RD MILITARY DISTRICT received copy of a memorandum issued by Lt. or the aiding and abetting (of ) the enemy" (Exhibit 9). USAFIP Santiago Casel. while Felix Lieut. while Bangued because of an attempt upon his life by unknown persons. No. 8-a) 1945. authorizing them "to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons accused of treason. This is an appeal by accused Manuel Beronilla. PA Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. and (Sgd. Vivo for appellee. My request that you withhold action in this case was only dictated because of a of Bangued. 337 G. 15th Inf.) R. 1945. Andres Afos. 10:35 a. Simultaneously with his appointment as Military Mayor.) MANUEL BERONILLA Jacinto Adriatico from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Abra (Criminal Case No. April 18. 1945. I Can only compliment you for Beronilla. were indicted in the Court of First Instance 16 April 1945 of Abra for murder. remains. 1955 Subject: Arsenio Borjal. Jesus Labuguen. FILIPINO VELASCO. in the town of La Paz . Philippine Army. Liwag and Solicitor Jaime R. Juanito Casal. H. Lieut. when he moved to the Roman Catholic Church was asked to administer the last confession to the prisoner. Jacinto Adriatico as executioner. No. To: Military Mayor of La Paz. Severo Afos as grave digger. 15th Inf. a 12-man jury was appointed by trial was absolutely impartial and fair.m. 1945. Policarpio Paculdo. composed of Jesus Labuguen as chairman. and continued Jacinto Adriatico acted as executioner and Antonio Palope as grave digger. Later. EN BANC Msg.) R.B. Mariano Ajel. your impartial independent way of handling the whole case. Arsenio Borjal was the elected mayor of La Paz.-Colonel. Juanito Casel. above. Col. and Pedro Turqueza as In the Field members of the jury. puppet mayor of La Paz). Andres Afos. Arnold. L-4445 February 28. This is a matter best handled by your government and whatever disposition you JACINTO ADRIATICO. until March 10. and abuse of authority were filed against Borjal. Policarpio Paculdo as clerk of the jury. sent him the following message: the province of Abra. and 2. Esteban Cabanos observed the proceedings for Received April 26. operating as a guerrilla unit in reply to Beronilla's report.

(Exhibit 9 and 12-a). Yes. Mayor Borjal wrote a note to Mayor Beronilla. I personally delivered the note of Borjal to Mayor Headquarters. acquitting The only witness who asserted that Beronilla received and read the Volckmann message. who claimed to have been. Filipino Velasco. the late President Manuel A. specifically named in the list of civilian officials to be prosecuted (Exhibit 12-b). overall area commander. who claimed to have been present at the delivery of the rendered judgment. Velasco Borjal should be tied. shortly after the accused had denied Borjal's petition to VOLCKMANN TO ARNOLD CLN UNDERSTAND THAT MUNICIPALITIES be allowed to hear mass. In of Arsenio Borjal jointly and severally in the amount of P4. Paculdo. acquitting the members of the jury and the grave digger Antonio Palope message. state the contents thereof. Mayor Beronilla did not answer the note. present at the receipt of the message and to have read it over Beronilla. originally sent to Arnold's Second Guerrilla Amnesty Commission. Roxas issued Executive Proclamation AND IMMEDIATE ACTION ON ONE ARSENIO BORJAL OF LA PAZ WHO No. a relative of Borjal.000 with subsidiary imprisonment the affidavit. Pedro Molina could not state what Afos( a boloman) was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. or to against Borjal. and find no satisfactory information so that he might be utilized as state witness. the reason why he would be tied. Abra. crime had been inspired by purely personal motives. the case against defendant Jesus Labuguen. defendants Jesus Labuguen. Abra? — A. H) (Records. April. The rest of the defendant filed their application for amnesty with the The crucial question thus becomes whether or not this message. although actually he was not called to proof that Beronilla did actually receive the radiogram Exhibit H or any copy thereof. I returned to the accused and find them guilty by two thirds vote. sir. to indemnify the heirs Balmaceda failed to make any mention of the reading. six bolomen came to me while I was on duty as guard. or even the receipt. Felix Alverne. altho it point to (Balmaceda) testified later at the trial. Balmaceda was contradicted by Bayken. 1945. Armed Forces of the Philippines (EXH. Ilocos Sur. was relayed by the latter to appellant Beronilla in La Paz. and Jacinto Adriatico as conspirator and co. 1950.e. who denied their application on the ground that the quarters in San Esteban. however. he would not have dared to report it to Arnold's SPECIFIC INSTANCE IS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION FRO PROPER headquarters on the very same day. Obviously. In convicting said defendants Q. however. applied CLN" for and was granted amnesty by the Amnesty Commission. otherwise Beronilla would have given him his orders direct. and Mayor Borjal was tied. It is to be noted that Arsenio Borjal was Presidencia. can not be accorded credence. and Lauro Parado upon insufficiency Exhibit H. they were not entitled to the benefits thereof because the crime was Q. Amnesty Proclamation. papers were enclosed in the package he delivered to Beronilla on that morning in question. and on July 10. Defendant Jesus Labuguen. as to the hatching of the specifically calling attention to the illegality of Borjal's conviction and sentence. who had been Arnold (Exhibit 8-8-a). Soon thereafter. pp. granting amnesty to all persons who committed acts penalized under the Revised Penal HAS BEEN TRIED CMA CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO BE HANGED Code in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of PD REPORT ACTION TAKEN BY YOU ON THIS MATTER PD MSG BEGINS the enemy. that was admittedly returned to and received by Beronilla on that date. as he had not yet learned of the decision of the jury The records are ample to sustain the claim of the defense that the arrest. and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment of from 17 that in the affidavit executed by this witness before Fiscal Antonio of Abra (Exhibit 4). In addition to radiogram Exhibit H from Col. ordered provisionally dismissed: defendant Juan Balmaceda was discharged from the We have carefully examined the evidence on this important issue. I was assigned as committed after the expiration of the time limit fixed by the amnesty proclamation. 618-20). as he did (Exhibit 20). Said message is as follows: kill Borjal in the early evening of April 18.: i. prosecution and trial against him. The state. but convicting defendants Manuel Beronilla's bodyguard. instructing all military mayors under its jurisdiction to Beronilla.. was ordering the execution of Borjal on the night of April 18. Beronilla's shoulder.Borjal. 1945. half an hour after 55 . On April 17. after review thereof by Upon motion of defense counsel. Severo Afos. The testify. Policarpio Paculdo. if the Volckmann message was known to Beronilla. together with the package of records of Borjal's trial First Instance of Abra for trial on the merits. years. on orders of Mayor Beronilla. OF ABRA HAVE ORGANIZED JURY SYSTEM PD BELIEVE THAT THIS Upon the other hand. April 18th. his granted amnesty by the Amnesty Commission of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Mayor Borjal wanted to know and Adriatico appealed to this Court. The messenger. On the 18th of the deceased Arsenio Borjal was executed after the liberation of La Paz. that guard at the Presidencia where Mayor Arsenio Borjal is confined. 1945 can not be justified. Arnold. was Rafael Balmaceda. 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. 1945. Balmaceda should not have relayed it to Borjal . 8. of the message. and remanded the case to the Court of Abra. predicates its case principally on the existence of the some member of the latter's family. Had he BODY IS ILLEGAL AND CANNOT TRY PUNISHMENTS THEREOF PD executed Borjal in violation of superior orders. as he cannot escape. nor Trial proceeded against the rest of the defendants. asking the reason for his of the late Arsenio Borjal were done pursuant to express orders of the 15th Infantry being ordered to be tied. the prosecution does not seriously dispute that the trial and sentencing of Borjal was when the message arrived. Moreover. as of evidence to establish their participation in the crime. as that was the ordered of Mayor Beronilla. while the case against defendants Antonio Palope (the grave digger) and Demetrio accused roundly denied it. This testimony. and each to pay one fourth of the costs. while Bayken testified that the agreement was "Message: made about ten o'clock in the morning. Volckmann. and which alleged conspiracy to kill Borjal. that Mayor In view of the sentence meted by the Court below. 1945. considering that they were relatives. In your capacity as policeman. the Court below could Francisco Bayquen (or Bayken). the accused Beronilla. to Lt. Beronilla's conduct belies his receipt of the Volckmann message. Balmaceda claimed that the accused-appellants decided to the prosecution claims was known to the accused Beronilla. Col. as he done in accordance with instructions of superior military authorities. as tomorrow he would die. he stated: in case of insolvency. it is difficult to believe that having learned of irregularities that were due more to ignorance of legal processes than personal animosity the contents of the Volckmann message. Will you state what is the event? — A. for the reason principals of the crime of murder. but instead told me that I should gather evidence against puppet officials and to appoint juries of at least 12 bolomen to try the tie Mayor Borjal. do you know of any usual occurrence that the Court a quo found that while the crime committed by them fell within the provisions of the transpired in La Paz. on the ground that they did not participated in the killing of Arsenio Borjal. on the morning of April 18. then a master sergeant in the Philippine Army. or "runner". The plain import of the affidavit is that the witness Rafael Balmaceda was not with Beronilla In truth. another prosecution witness.

who subsequently took cognizance of the instructions. one of them (attorney Jovito Barreras) chosen by Borjal's sister. Actus non facit reum nisi mens si rea. L-2011 and 2267. 21-a) case. after finding that the late Arsenio Borjal had really committed treasonable acts. 56 . in law. and this finding was accepted by Judge Letargo when he dismissed the case against said accused on March 15. dated August 12.. 9. 25 March 1929). 727). 507). for some reason that can not now be ascertained.. duly sentenced to death. Col. Sent. because the accused had no need to shall be resolved in favor of the accused" (42 Off. as military subordinates. It appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of murder. of the Department of the Interior. of October 2. nisi mens rea-a crime is not committed if the minds of the person performing the act complained of be innocent. but given the benefit of the Our conclusion is that Lt. Record. except in certain crimes made such by statute. 1946) to transmit the Volckmann message to Beronilla. 47 Phil. the conduct of the appellants does not dispose that these appellants were impelled by malice (dolo). and Borjal was not punished until the records were returned eight days later with the statement of Arnold that "whatever disposition you make of the case is hereby approved" (Exhibit 8). Nos. S. 507. of a superior officers that they. Abra) authorized its resumption and sent an observer (Esteban Cabanos. 11. Judge Bocar and Hilario. "I can only compliment you for your impartial but independent way of handling the whole 1948. is contradictory. To constitute a crime. and obeyed in good faith. 1945. since then "it may not be held that the manslaughter stemmed from purely personal motives" (People vs. The arrest and trial of Borjal were made upon express orders of the higher command. 18 Phil. Actually. On the other hand.. Arnold. with costs de oficio. 25. And this being so. relied on Department Order No. S... and hidden American officers to be captured by the Japanese) expressly declared that "the Court is convinced that it was not for political or personal reason that the accused decided to kill Arsenio Borjal" (Decision. 3 July 1886. p. 18 Phil. as. 1921. And what is even more important. 2072)on the ground that the slaying of Arsenio Borjal took place after actual liberation of the area from enemy control and occupation. (No. p. the judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellants are already decided that the concurrence of personal hatred and collaboration with the enemy as acquitted.. the Court below should not have denied their claim to the benefits of the Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 7 January 1901. Colonel Arnold on April 21. 1945. vs.the execution. The state claims that the appellants held grudges against the late Borjal. Peo. Gaz. (causing soldiers and civilians to be tortured. was liberated on July 1. conspire against a man who was. without being aware of their illegality. it has been For the reasons stated. which on its face was an assent to the verdict and the sentence. But even assuming that the accused-appellant did commit crime with they are charged. Gaz. Pacana. Abra. as was done in People vs. held that La Paz. 2360). could not question. (U. and whose suggestions on procedure were followed. the trial lasted nineteen (19) days. actus non facit reum. failed Presidential directive to the Amnesty Commissions (Adm. Abra. R. Barrioquinto. the records were sent to Arnold's headquarters for review. motives for a liquidation does not operate to exclude the case from the benefits of the Amnesty claimed by appellants. and when the verdict of guilty was rendered and death sentence imposed. and it was not resumed until headquarters (then in Langangilang. Catolico. 1951). if Borjal was executed contrary to 1949. 48. and that the accused-appellants acted upon orders. 21 Feb. without any fault or negligence on their part. write in reply (Exhibit 21. The Military Amnesty Commission that decided the case of one of the original accused Jesus Labuguen. Catolico. Even so. the charge of criminal that "any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls within the (amnesty) proclamation conspiracy to do away with Borjal must be rejected. the act must. The evidence on record regarding the date of liberation of La Paz. 1945.* G. be accompanied by a criminal intent. Gaz. vs. June 30. 107 46 Off. Gajo. is equivalent to criminal intent. or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequence. how could Lt. setting the liberation of the Province of Abra on April 4. the appellants allowed Borjal to be defended by counsel. we can not say that criminal intent has been established (U. The two dates are not strictly contradictory. according to its records. Phil. vs. 6093.. 24 March 1900. fifteen days before case" instead of berating Beronilla and ordering his court martial for disobedience? Borjal was slain. to their knowledge. 12) p. 8 (42 Off. of the S-5) to the proceedings. Order No. The maxim is. The lower Court. it was suspended when doubts arose about its legality. of the Tribunal Supremo of Spain.

Soon after. which convicted them of murder for the execution of Arsenio Borjal. the lower court should not have denied their claim to the benefits of the Guerilla Amnesty Proclamation No. he was placed under custody and tried and sentenced to death by the jury based on various complaints made by the residents. which called attention to the illegality of Borjal’s conviction and sentence. 8 inspite of contradictory dates of liberation of La Paz. the elected mayor of La. JBL Reyes Obedience to Lawful Order of a Superior Facts: Manuel Beronilla. Beronilla reported this to Col. Arnold who replied. Simultaneously upon his appointment. operating as guerilla unit in Abra. Upon the return of Borjal and his family to Abra. Additionally. who was appointed by Lt. but Beronilla and others were convicted on the grounds that the crime was made on purely personal motives and that the crime was committed after the expiration of time limit for amnesty proclamation. Filipino Velasco and Jacinto Adriatico file an appeal from the judgement of the Abra CFI. Abra. Even PEOPLE V BERONILLA if the dates were contradictory. et al because if there are “any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls within the (amnesty) proclamation should be resolved in favor of the accused. overall area commander.” Two years thereafter. it could not be established that Beronilla received the radiogram from Colonel Volckmann. the court should have found for the Beronila. which granted amnesty to persons who committed acts in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy. Beronilla received a memorandum which authorized him to appoint a jury of 12 bolo men to try persons accused of treason. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the claim of the defense that arrest. saying “…I can only compliment you for your impartial but independent way of handling the whole case. The conduct of the accused also does not show malice on their part because of the conduct of the trial. 57 . Paz. were indicted for the murder of Borjal. Arbold.” 11FEB Judgement reversed. President Manuel Roxas issued Executive Proclamation 8. The rest of defendants applied and were granted amnesty. L – 4445 | February 28. nisi mens rea (Crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of to be innocent). appellants acquitted. he would not have dared to report it to Arnold. they could not question and obeyed in good faith without the being aware of its illegality. Beronilla. Army. Additionally. to escape bombing in Bangued. suspension of trial based on doubts of illegality and death sentence review sent to the superior officers. The accused acted upon orders of their superior officers. defense through counsel given to Borjal. digger and jury. Issue: W/N the defendant-appellants’ actions are covered by justifying circumstances for obedience to lawful order of superior Held: Yes. along with the executioner. Borjal moved to Bangued because of death threats was succeeded by Military Mayor Manuel Beronilla. Policarpio Paculdo. Criminal intent then could not be established. regimental commander of the 15 th Infantry of the Phil. The maxim here is actus non facit reum. which was found to be aiding the enemy. Abra (at the outbreak of war). which as military subordinates. Col. espionage and aiding or abetting the enemy. prosecution and trial of Borjal was done in pursuant to express orders of superiors. 1955 | J. Had Beronilla known the violation.

digger and jury. Beronilla reported this to Col. Additionally. they could not question and obeyed in good faith without the being aware of its illegality. which convicted them of murder for the execution of Arsenio Borjal. but Beronilla and others were convicted on the grounds that the crime was made on purely personal motives and that the crime was committed after the expiration of time limit for amnesty proclamation. The conduct of the accused also does not show malice on their part because of the conduct of the trial. Beronilla. et al because if 58 . Abra. Had Beronilla known the violation. Simultaneously upon his appointment. Arbold. The accused acted upon orders of their superior officers. Abra (at the outbreak of war). it could not be established that Beronilla received the radiogram from Colonel Volckmann. 8 inspite of contradictory dates of liberation of La Paz. nisi mens rea (Crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of to be innocent). which as military subordinates. the elected mayor of La. regimental commander of the 15 th Infantry of the Phil. which called attention to the illegality of Borjal’s conviction and sentence. operating as guerilla unit in Abra.” Two years thereafter. 1955 | J. the lower court should not have denied their claim to the benefits of the Guerilla Amnesty Proclamation No. Even if the dates were contradictory. The maxim here is actus non facit reum. suspension of trial based on doubts of illegality and death sentence review sent to the superior officers. Filipino Velasco and Jacinto Adriatico file an appeal from the judgement of the Abra CFI. appellants acquitted. which was found to be aiding the enemy. overall area commander. 11FEB L – 4445 | February 28. Beronilla received a memorandum which authorized him to appoint a jury of 12 bolo men to try persons accused of treason. which granted amnesty to persons who committed acts in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy. JBL Reyes Obedience to Lawful Order of a Superior Facts: Manuel Beronilla. prosecution and trial of Borjal was done in pursuant to express orders of superiors. to escape bombing in Bangued. along with the executioner. Paz. Soon after. saying “…I can only compliment you for your impartial but independent way of handling the whole case. Arnold who replied. Upon the return of Borjal and his family to Abra.PEOPLE V BERONILLA there are “any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls within the (amnesty) proclamation should be resolved in favor of the accused. Policarpio Paculdo.” Judgement reversed. he would not have dared to report it to Arnold. Additionally. Col. Army. defense through counsel given to Borjal. Criminal intent then could not be established. the court should have found for the Beronila. were indicted for the murder of Borjal. who was appointed by Lt. he was placed under custody and tried and sentenced to death by the jury based on various complaints made by the residents. President Manuel Roxas issued Executive Proclamation 8. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the claim of the defense that arrest. Issue: W/N the defendant-appellants’ actions are covered by justifying circumstances for obedience to lawful order of superior Held: Yes. Borjal moved to Bangued because of death threats was succeeded by Military Mayor Manuel Beronilla. espionage and aiding or abetting the enemy. The rest of defendants applied and were granted amnesty.