People vs Austria

FACTS:

It appears from the records that in the morning of August 10, 1975, the police dug out of the
ground in a sugarcane field in sitio Palanas, Sagay, Negros Occidental, the lifeless body of
Tomas Azuelo. Found near his grave were the traces of blood and a bloodstained piece of wood.
Post mortem examination showed that Tomas Azuelo's skull was fractured and his body
sustained eighteen (18) stab wounds, fifteen (15) of which were fatal. The payroll, together with
the sum of P771.40 intended for the wages of laborers of Hacienda Austria, of which Azuelo was
the overseer, was missing.

Four suspects for the death of Tomas Azuelo were picked up by the police working together with
the Philippine Constabulary. One of the suspects, Pablo Austria, was the last person who was
seen with Tomas Azuelo. They boarded a tricycle together, on August 9, 1975 at about 3:30
p.m., from the poblacion of Sagay and alighted at about 4:00 p.m. at crossing Tupas.

The other suspects were implicated based on the sworn statement dated September 17, 1975 of
Pablo Austria, who imputed to his son Eduardo, his brother-in-law Jaime de la Torre and
Leopoldo Abanilla, the commission of the crime.

On September 17, 1975, Gregorio Eras, Deputy Chief of Police, Sagay, Negros Occidental, filed a
complaint for robbery with homicide against Eduardo Austria, Pablo Austria, Jaime de la Torre and
Leopoldo Abanilla, After preliminary examination, Judge Emilio Ignalaga, Acting Municipal Judge, Sagay,
Negros Occidental, issued a warrant of arrest against herein appellants. All the accused pleaded not
guilty to the charge.

Pablo Austria testified that Tomas Azuelo was his second degree cousin. On August 9, 1975, he
was summoned by the wife of Tomas Azuelo to fetch water. He was in Azuelo's house from
11:00 o'clock in the morning, took his lunch thereat upon invitation of Azuelo's wife and waited
for Tomas Azuelo up to 7:00 o'clock in the evening for his compensation in plowing their farm.
On August 14, 1975, he was picked up without a warrant of arrest by a policeman and a PC
soldier while working on the concrete cover of the deceased's tomb. He was investigated without
informing him of his right to remain silent and to counsel. After six (6) days in detention he was
released upon the intercession of Iluminada, wife of the deceased. On September 17, 1975 he
was again picked up by Voltaire Yee at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening. Jaime de la Torre, who
was with him in the PC stockade, struck him in the head with a revolver on orders of a certain
Torenas, a PC soldier. Later, he was brought out of the PC stockade and Torenas kicked and
boxed him. The following day, Alberto Olario, the commanding officer, again maltreated him as
he refused to admit participation in the killing of Tomas Azuelo. On orders of the commanding
officer, Voltaire Yee prepared an affidavit. He did not read the affidavit, as he does not know
how to read, nor was it read to him. Voltaire Yee forced him to affix his thumbmark in the
affidavit inside the office of Judge Ignalaga. (TSN, December 4, 1978, pp. 171-200)
In his testimony, Jaime de la Torre disowned the statements attributed to him during the
investigation conducted by Sgt. Vicente Aquino and instead declared that it was not Eduardo
Austria but Carlos Capitle, Jr. who borrowed his hoe in the afternoon of August 9, 1975. He also
contradicted the statements contained in the affidavit that he saw Pablo Austria, Eduardo Austria
and another person standing near the body of the deceased. Instead, he testified that in the
sugarcane field that day (August 14, 1975), he saw Carlos Capitle, Jr. and Celestino Capitle with
another person looking at the dead body of Azuelo. He helped cover the dead with grass on
orders of Carlos Capitle with warning not to tell his family or anybody, otherwise his family will
be killed. He admitted ownership of the hoe but denied any participation in the killing. He also
claimed that he was arrested without warrant and detained for more than a month in the PC
headquarters, at Sagay, Negros Occidental. During said detention he was investigated and
allegedly maltreated by Captain Olario (TSN, January 22, 1980, pp. 149-170, 210-221, 393-404).

On March 18, 1980, the trial court rendered its decision convicting appellants of the imputed crime

ISSUE:

W/N the appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the circumstantial evidence of the
prosecution.

RULING:

NO.

In the first place, as stated in the appealed decision, the evidence of the prosecution against appellant
Eduardo Austria is merely circumstantial. Aside from the extra-judicial confessions of the deceased
appellants, there is neither direct evidence nor actual witness to the commission of the crime.

The series of circumstances proved must be consistent with each other and that each and every
circumstance must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his
innocence. To warrant conviction in criminal cases based upon circumstantial evidence, it must
constitute an unbroken chain of events so as to lead to a conviction that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. In the case at bar, the circumstantial evidence do not prove an
unbroken link of events that could give rise to a reasonable and fair conclusion that appellant
committed the imputed offense.

As regards appellant Eduardo Austria, the only evidence against him is that he was seen at about
1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of August 9, 1975 along the road going to Hda Austria. This
evidence even if tied up with the testimony of Iluminada Azuelo that Austria harbored ill-
feelings against the deceased because he was dismissed from the hacienda by the deceased does
not establish or support an inference, much less a conclusion, that he participated in the
commission of the offense charged. The conviction of appellant Eduardo Austria on an inference
based on another inference cannot be maintained.

To overcome the presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed. Thus, in
People v. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 60 [1971], this Court held:
 Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt; the
prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. To meet this standard, there is need for the most careful scrutiny of the
testimony of the state, both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is
offered by the accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at
a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under
such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that
every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against
him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway
judgment.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 145498            January 17, 2005

BENJAMIN LEE, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

The facts are as follows:

On October 4, 1993, an Information was filed against petitioner Dr. Benjamin F. Lee and a certain Cesar
Al. Bautista, for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, which reads:

That on or about the 24th day of July 1993, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring
together, confederating with, and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously make or draw and issue to Rogelio G. Bergado to apply on account or for value United
Coconut Planters Bank Check No. 168341 dated July 24, 1993 payable to the order of Rogelio G.
Bergado in the amount of P980,000.00, Philippine Currency, said accused well knowing that at the time of
issue they did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such check in full
upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment was subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for Account Closed and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to
pay said Rogelio G. Bergado the amount of said check or to make arrangement for full payment of the
same within five (5) banking days after receiving said notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3

On July 22, 1997, the RTC promulgated its decision, finding accused Benjamin Lee guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Petitioner went to the Court of Appeals which
modified the trial court’s judgment. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present
petition .

Issue:

Simply stated, the issues that need to be resolved are as follows: (1) whether the RTC, which tried and
convicted petitioner, has jurisdiction over the case; (2) whether petitioner had actual knowledge of the
sufficiency or insufficiency of funds handled by his co-accused; (3) whether the check was issued on
account or for value; (4) whether the private complainant, at the time of issuance, had knowledge that the
check had no sufficient funds; and (5) whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable
doubt.

Ruling:

Third issue. Whether or not the check was issued on account or for value.

Petitioner’s claim is not feasible. We have held that upon issuance of a check, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, it is presumed that the same was issued for valuable consideration. 47 Valuable
consideration, in turn, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party who
makes the contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or some responsibility, to act, or labor, or
service given, suffered or undertaken by the other side. It is an obligation to do, or not to do in favor of the
party who makes the contract, such as the maker or indorser. 48

In this case, petitioner himself testified that he signed several checks in blank, the subject check included,
in exchange for 2.5% interest from the proceeds of loans that will be made from said account. This is a
valuable consideration for which the check was issued. That there was neither a pre-existing obligation
nor an obligation incurred on the part of petitioner when the subject check was given by Bautista to
private complainant on July 24, 1993 because petitioner was no longer connected with Unlad or Bautista
starting July 1989, cannot be given merit since, as earlier discussed, petitioner failed to adequately prove
that he has severed his relationship with Bautista or Unlad.

At any rate, we have held that what the law punishes is the mere act of issuing a bouncing check, not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. This is because the
thrust of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation. 49

Fourth issue. Whether the private complainant, at the time of issuance, had knowledge that the checks
had no sufficient funds.

We have held that knowledge of the payee that the drawer did not have sufficient funds with the drawee
bank at the time the check was issued is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of the offense
under B.P. Blg. 22.50 This is because the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad check, hence,
malice and intent in the issuance thereof are inconsequential. 51
In Yu Oh vs. Court of Appeals 52 the Court held that there is no violation of B.P. Blg. 22, if complainant
was actually told by the drawer that he has no sufficient funds in the bank. 53 In the present case, since
there is no evidence that a categorical statement was given to private complainant when the subject
check was issued to him, the above ruling cannot apply.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
The sentence of imprisonment is deleted. Instead, petitioner is ordered to pay a fine of P200,000.00,
subject to subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency pursuant to Article 39 of the Revised Penal
Code; and petitioner is ordered to pay the private complainant the amount of P980,000.00 with 12% legal
interest per annum from the date of finality of herein judgment.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

TOLEDO vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 158057            
September 24, 2004

FACTS:

This is a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming on
appeal, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82
convicting the petitioner of homicide.

On September 16, 1995, Noe Toledo y Tamboong (Noe) went to a black-smith who made
the design of his bolo. When he went home to Tuburan, Odiongan, Romblon late in the
afternoon, he saw the group of Lani Famero, Michael Fosana, Rex Cortez and Ricky Guarte
drinking gin at the house of the Spouses Manuel and Eliza Guarte, Ricky’s parents. His house is
about five (5) meters away from the house of Spouses Guarte.

He requested the group of Ricky to refrain from making any noise and proceeded inside
his house and went to sleep. Around 9:00 p.m., Gerardo Faminia, Eliza Guarte’s brother arrived
at the Guarte house and asked for any left-over food. Eliza prepared dinner for him and after
Gerardo finished eating, he went home accompanied by Ricky. Gerardo’s home is about 12
meters away from the Guarte home. Minutes later, Ricky came back and together with Lani, Rex
and Michael, went to sleep at the Guarte house. They had not laid down for long when they
heard stones being hurled at the roof of the house. The stoning was made three (3) times. Ricky
rose from bed and peeped through a window. He saw Noe stoning their house. Ricky went out of
the house and proceeded to Noe’s house. Ricky asked Noe, his uncle, why he was stoning their
house. Noe did not answer but met Ricky at the doorstep of his house and, without any warning,
stabbed Ricky on the abdomen with a bolo. Eliza had followed his son Ricky and upon seeing
that Ricky was stabbed, shouted for help. Lani heard Eliza’s cry for help and immediately rushed
outside the house. Lani saw Ricky leaning on the ground and supporting his body with his
hands. Lani helped Ricky stand up and brought him to the main road. Lani asked Ricky who
stabbed him and Ricky replied that it was Noe who stabbed him. Then Docloy Cortez arrived at
the scene on board his tricycle. Accordingly, Ricky was put on the tricycle and taken to the
Romblon Provincial Hospital.
 At the Romblon Provincial Hospital, Dr. Fetalvero operated on Ricky that very night.
Ricky had sustained one (1) stab wound but due to massive blood loss, he died while being
operated on. Dr. Fetalvero issued a Medico-Legal Certificate showing the injuries sustained by
Ricky wherein there is a stab wound on the left chest with gastric & transverse colon evisceration
measuring 6 cms. long, irregular-edged at 8th ICS, left penetrating.

RTC rendered judgment finding the petitioner guilty as charged.

The CA rendered judgment affirming the assailed decision with modifications. The CA
also denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration thereof. The appellate court ruled that
the petitioner failed to prove that he acted in self-defense.

The Office of the Solicitor General asserts that the petitioner failed to prove self-
defense with clear and convincing evidence. Hence, the decision of the CA affirming, on appeal,
the decision of the RTC is correct.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition for review, contending that the CA erred in
not finding that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed the victim by accident and prays that
he be acquitted of the crime charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide based on the
evidence on record.

HELD:

YES, he is guilty of homicide. The contention of the petitioner Noe has no

merit.

Petitioner Noe testified that his bolo hit the victim accidentally.

He asserted in the RTC and in the CA that he is exempt from criminal liability for the
death of the victim under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code which reads:

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

As such, he contends, he is not criminally liable under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code which reads:

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal

liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it:
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
 The petitioner also avers that he was able to prove the essential elements
of complete self-defense.

The essential requisites of self-defense are:

1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
2) reasonable scrutiny of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

However, the petitioner also claims that his bolo accidentally hit the stomach of the victim.
It is a matter of law that when a party adopts a particular theory and the case is tried and
decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on
appeal. The petitioner is proscribed from changing in this Court, his theory of defense which he
adopted in the trial court and foisted in the CA – by claiming that he stabbed and killed the
victim in complete self-defense. He relied on Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code
in the trial and appellate courts, but adopted in this Court two divergent theories – (1) that he
killed the victim to defend himself against his unlawful aggression; hence, is
justified under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code; (2) that his bolo
accidentally hit the victim and is, thus, exempt from criminal liability under Article 12,
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

It is an aberration for the petitioner to invoke the two defenses at the same time because the
said defenses are intrinsically antithetical. There is no such defense as accidental self-defense in
the realm of criminal law.

Self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code necessarily
implies a deliberate and positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel an unlawful
aggression of another with the use of reasonable means. The accused has freedom of action. He
is aware of the consequences of his deliberate acts. The defense is based on necessity which is
the supreme and irresistible master of men of all human affairs, and of the law. From necessity,
and limited by it, proceeds the right of self-defense. The right begins when necessity does, and
ends where it ends. Although the accused, in fact, injures or kills the victim, however, his act is
in accordance with law so much so that the accused is deemed not to have transgressed the law
and is free from both criminal and civil liabilities. 

On the other hand, the basis of exempting circumstances under Article 12 of the
Revised Penal Code is the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or
the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. The basis of the exemption in Article 12,
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code is lack of negligence and intent. The accused does not
commit either an intentional or culpable felony. The accused commits a crime but there is no
criminal liability because of the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free
will or voluntariness of the act. An accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an
event happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the
circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens.
Self-defense, under Article 11, paragraph 1, and accident, under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the
Revised Penal Code, are affirmative defenses which the accused is burdened to prove, with clear
and convincing evidence.The petitioner failed to prove that the victim was killed by accident,
without fault or intention on his part to cause it. The petitioner was burdened to prove with clear
and convincing evidence, the essential requisites for the exempting circumstance
under Article 12, paragraph 4, viz:
1) A person is performing a lawful act;
 2) With due care;
3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4) Without fault or intention of causing it.

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstances of
self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. It presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected
attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating
attitude. Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that the petitioner failed to prove self-
defense, whether complete or incomplete.