PEOPLE VS SAN MIGUEL

GR NO. L-39746

DIGESTED BY: GULA

TOPIC:

FACTS:

Respondents, Blandino San Miguel, Albert Adin Jr, and John Doe were accused of homicide
with the following information:

That those accused conspired together, and with intent to kill, stabbed Luis Binag; thereby
inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which was the direct and immediate cause of
his death

Based on the evidence of the prosecution, Luis Tarum was sleeping inside his house when
the three defendants barged inside and started attacking Luis with a club and bladed
weapons. Blandino is said to have stabbed Luis three times and clubbed him three times at
the back of his neck with an iron pipe, and while Blandino was clubbing him, Albert and John
Doe were also simultaneously stabbing him. After inflicting several wounds, the defendants
ran away together. Luis was then immediately brought by his wife to the hospital, but died
before he even arrived

On the other hand, Blandino testified in his defense that he only went inside the house of
Luis upon hearing a commotion; he saw Albert and Luis Tarum figting and was grappling for
the bolo; Luis’ wife then asked him to pacify the two, so he went near them and started
shouting for Luis to stop. Apparently, Luis was startled by his voice and began attacking him
instead with the bolo. Blandino ran and got hold of an iron pipe and then returned to Luis;
when Luis started attacking him again, he strucked Luis with the iron pipe twice. After that,
Luis proceeded in a weak condition to his house and while on the way, he was suddenly
stabbed by John Doe, followed by Albert who also repeatedly stabbed him.

Blandino then claims that his action of striking Luis with an iron pipe is an act of self-
defense.

However, the trial court held that the circumstances, wherein Blandino confronted the
deceased with the pipe instead of just running away, do not paint a picture of self-defense.

The trial court then adjudged him guilty of murder, instead of the original charge of
homicide.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in charging Baldino of murder instead of homicide?
(YES)

HELD:
The words “conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another”
contained in the information, simply convey the allegation of conspiracy. Otherwise, as the
defense rightly argues, 'every charge of conspiracy to commit homicide, would result in a
charge of murder'. There should be some other allegation in the information showing that
the accused did take advantage of superior strength and/or with the aid of armed men."

If the circumstance of abuse of superior strength is not alleged in the information, it may
only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in the imposition of the
corresponding penalty.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is modified in that the appellant shall be
convicted for the crime of homicide only and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight
(8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. The appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Costs against the
appellant.

PEOPLE VS PAYCANA

GR NO 179035

DIGESTED BY: GULA

TOPIC:

FACTS:

Paycana Jr. was charged with parricide with unintentional abortion to which he pleaded not
guilty.

The evidence for the prosecution established that at around 6:30 am on Nov 26, 2002,
appellant, who worked as a butcher, came home from the slaughter house carrying his
tools of trade, a knife, a bolo, and a sharpener. His wife, who is 7 months pregnant, was
preparing their children for school and was waiting for him to come home from his work. For
reasons known to him alone, appellant stabbed his wife 14 times.

Tito, the father of the victim, whose house is at the back of appellants house, heard his
daughter shouting for help. When he arrived, he saw his daughter lying prostrate near the
door and her feet were trembling. But seeing appellant, who was armed, he stepped back.

On the other hand, the defendant claims that it was self‐defense. That he and his wife had
an altercation beforehand because the latter was apparently cheating, so defendant told his
wife that they should live separately; and while he was was on his way out, his wife
suddenly stabbed him with a knife; he succeeded in wrestling the knife from her and started
stabbing her as well. He added that he was not aware of the number of times he stabbed
his wife because he was then dizzy and lots of blood was coming out of his wound. 
However, Angelina, their eldest daughter, testified that her father strangled and stabbed her
mother just as she was about to greet him upon arriving home. She begged her father to
stop, and even tried to grab her father’s hand but to no avail.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of self-
defense in favor of the defendant? (NO)

HELD:

RTC is better suited to ascertain if it was indeed self-defense based on the facts. The lower
court has appreciated all the facts and circumstances, and have seen and heard the
witnesses. SC has no reason to disturb its findings.

Defendant failed to discharge the burden to prove self-defense. An accused who interposes
self-defense admits the commission of the act complained of. The burden to establish self-
defense is on the accused who must show by strong, clear and convincing evidence that the
killing is justified and that, therefore, no criminal liability has attached. The first paragraph
of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code requires, in a plea of self-defense, (1) an unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim, (2) a reasonable necessity of the means employed by
the accused to prevent or repel it, and (3) the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself. In the case at hand, the first two elements is not justified;
unlawful aggression was belied by the witnesses and the medical findings shows that
injuries to Paycana were self-inflicted and superficial. Moreover, the act of defendant of
stabbing his wife 14 times is not a reasonable necessity at all, it is evident that there was an
intention to kill.

Therefore, The RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly convicted appellant of the
complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion in the killing of his seven (7)-month
pregnant wife.