Anda di halaman 1dari 48

G.R. No.

172716 November 17, 2010 reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the motion remained
JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, Petitioner, vs. HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN unresolved.
PEDRO, Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and
EVANGELINE PONCE, Respondents. Relying on the arrest order against petitioner, respondent Ponce sought in the RTC
DECISION the dismissal of S.C.A. No. 2803 for petitioners loss of standing to maintain the suit.
The Case Petitioner contested the motion.

The petition seeks the review1 of the Orders2 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig The Ruling of the Trial Court
City affirming sub-silencio a lower courts ruling finding inapplicable the Double
Jeopardy Clause to bar a second prosecution for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in In an Order dated 2 February 2006, the RTC dismissed S.C.A. No. 2803, narrowly
Homicide and Damage to Property. This, despite the accuseds previous conviction grounding its ruling on petitioners forfeiture of standing to maintain S.C.A. No.
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries arising from the same 2803 arising from the MeTCs order to arrest petitioner for his non-appearance at
incident grounding the second prosecution. the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366. Thus, without reaching the merits of
S.C.A. No. 2803, the RTC effectively affirmed the MeTC. Petitioner sought
The Facts reconsideration but this proved unavailing.6

Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was Hence, this petition.
charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71 (MeTC), with
two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries Petitioner denies absconding. He explains that his petition in S.C.A. No. 2803
(Criminal Case No. 82367) for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce constrained him to forego participation in the proceedings in Criminal Case No.
(respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and 82366. Petitioner distinguishes his case from the line of jurisprudence sanctioning
Damage to Property (Criminal Case No. 82366) for the death of respondent Ponces dismissal of appeals for absconding appellants because his appeal before the RTC
husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponces vehicle. Petitioner was a special civil action seeking a pre-trial relief, not a post-trial appeal of a
posted bail for his temporary release in both cases. judgment of conviction.7

On 7 September 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge in Criminal Case No. Petitioner laments the RTCs failure to reach the merits of his petition in S.C.A.
82367 and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, 2803. Invoking jurisprudence, petitioner argues that his constitutional right not to
petitioner moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 for placing be placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense bars his
him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless prosecution in Criminal Case No. 82366, having been previously convicted in
imprudence. Criminal Case No. 82367 for the same offense of reckless imprudence charged in
Criminal Case No. 82366. Petitioner submits that the multiple consequences of such
The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases. 3 crime are material only to determine his penalty.

After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration, petitioner elevated the matter to the Respondent Ponce finds no reason for the Court to disturb the RTCs decision
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 157 (RTC), in a petition for certiorari forfeiting petitioners standing to maintain his petition in S.C.A. 2803. On the
(S.C.A. No. 2803). Meanwhile, petitioner sought from the MeTC the suspension of merits, respondent Ponce calls the Courts attention to jurisprudence holding that
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366, including the arraignment on 17 May light offenses (e.g. slight physical injuries) cannot be complexed under Article 48 of
2005, invoking S.C.A. No. 2803 as a prejudicial question. Without acting on the Revised Penal Code with grave or less grave felonies (e.g. homicide). Hence, the
petitioners motion, the MeTC proceeded with the arraignment and, because of prosecution was obliged to separate the charge in Criminal Case No. 82366 for the
petitioners absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest.4 Seven days later, slight physical injuries from Criminal Case No. 82367 for the homicide and damage
the MeTC issued a resolution denying petitioners motion to suspend proceedings to property.
and postponing his arraignment until after his arrest.5 Petitioner sought

1
In the Resolution of 6 June 2007, we granted the Office of the Solicitor Generals more evident when one considers the Rules of Courts treatment of a defendant
motion not to file a comment to the petition as the public respondent judge is who absents himself from post-arraignment hearings. Under Section 21, Rule
merely a nominal party and private respondent is represented by counsel. 11411 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendants absence merely
renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond (subject to cancellation should
The Issues the bondsman fail to produce the accused within 30 days); the defendant retains
Two questions are presented for resolution: (1) whether petitioner forfeited his his standing and, should he fail to surrender, will be tried in absentia and could be
standing to seek relief in S.C.A. 2803 when the MeTC ordered his arrest following convicted or acquitted. Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the bondsman to
his non-appearance at the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366; and (2) if in the produce the accused underscores the fact that mere non-appearance does not ipso
negative, whether petitioners constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy facto convert the accuseds status to that of a fugitive without standing.
Clause bars further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366.
Further, the RTCs observation that petitioner provided "no explanation why he
The Ruling of the Court failed to attend the scheduled proceeding" 12 at the MeTC is belied by the records.
We hold that (1) petitioners non-appearance at the arraignment in Criminal Case Days before the arraignment, petitioner sought the suspension of the MeTCs
No. 82366 did not divest him of personality to maintain the petition in S.C.A. 2803; proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366 in light of his petition with the RTC in S.C.A.
and (2) the protection afforded by the Constitution shielding petitioner from No. 2803. Following the MeTCs refusal to defer arraignment (the order for which
prosecutions placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense was released days after the MeTC ordered petitioners arrest), petitioner sought
bars further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366. reconsideration. His motion remained unresolved as of the filing of this petition.
Petitioners Non-appearance at the Arraignment in
Criminal Case No. 82366 did not Divest him of Standing Petitioners Conviction in Criminal Case No. 82367
to Maintain the Petition in S.C.A. 2803 Bars his Prosecution in Criminal Case No. 82366

Dismissals of appeals grounded on the appellants escape from custody or violation The accuseds negative constitutional right not to be "twice put in jeopardy of
of the terms of his bail bond are governed by the second paragraph of Section 8, punishment for the same offense"13protects him from, among others, post-
Rule 124,8 in relation to Section 1, Rule 125, of the Revised Rules on Criminal conviction prosecution for the same offense, with the prior verdict rendered by a
Procedure authorizing this Court or the Court of Appeals to "also, upon motion of court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid information. 14 It is not disputed that
the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from petitioners conviction in Criminal Case No. 82367 was rendered by a court of
prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency competent jurisdiction upon a valid charge. Thus, the case turns on the question
of the appeal." The "appeal" contemplated in Section 8 of Rule 124 is a suit to whether Criminal Case No. 82366 and Criminal Case No. 82367 involve the "same
review judgments of convictions. offense." Petitioner adopts the affirmative view, submitting that the two cases
concern the same offense of reckless imprudence. The MeTC ruled otherwise,
The RTCs dismissal of petitioners special civil action for certiorari to review a pre- finding that Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries is an entirely
arraignment ancillary question on the applicability of the Due Process Clause to bar separate offense from Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366 finds no basis under procedural rules and Property "as the [latter] requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
jurisprudence. The RTCs reliance on People v. Esparas9 undercuts the cogency of its not."15
ruling because Esparas stands for a proposition contrary to the RTCs ruling. There,
the Court granted review to an appeal by an accused who was sentenced to death We find for petitioner.
for importing prohibited drugs even though she jumped bail pending trial and was
thus tried and convicted in absentia. The Court in Esparas treated the mandatory Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime, its Consequences on Persons and Property
review of death sentences under Republic Act No. 7659 as an exception to Section are Material Only to Determine the Penalty
8 of Rule 124.10
The two charges against petitioner, arising from the same facts, were prosecuted
The mischief in the RTCs treatment of petitioners non-appearance at his under the same provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article
arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366 as proof of his loss of standing becomes 365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses. The text of the provision reads:
2
Imprudence and negligence. Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in
commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision manifest.
correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony,
the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be
if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such
maximum period shall be imposed. help as may be in this hand to give.

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which Structurally, these nine paragraphs are collapsible into four sub-groupings relating
would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor to (1) the penalties attached to the quasi-offenses of "imprudence" and
in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious "negligence" (paragraphs 1-2); (2) a modified penalty scheme for either or both
felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed. quasi-offenses (paragraphs 3-4, 6 and 9); (3) a generic rule for trial courts in
imposing penalties (paragraph 5); and (4) the definition of "reckless imprudence"
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in and "simple imprudence" (paragraphs 7-8). Conceptually, quasi-offenses penalize
damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging "the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack
from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible,"16 unlike willful offenses which
which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos. punish the intentional criminal act. These structural and conceptual features of
quasi-offenses set them apart from the mass of intentional crimes under the first
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any 13 Titles of Book II of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if
done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony. Indeed, the notion that quasi-offenses, whether reckless or simple, are distinct
species of crime, separately defined and penalized under the framework of our
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, penal laws, is nothing new. As early as the middle of the last century, we already
without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four. sought to bring clarity to this field by rejecting in Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of
Pampanga the proposition that "reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable: simply a way of committing it x x x"17 on three points of analysis: (1) the object of
punishment in quasi-crimes (as opposed to intentional crimes); (2) the legislative
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those
intent to treat quasi-crimes as distinct offenses (as opposed to subsuming them
provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall
under the mitigating circumstance of minimal intent) and; (3) the different penalty
impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the
structures for quasi-crimes and intentional crimes:
period which they may deem proper to apply.
The proposition (inferred from Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code) that "reckless
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to
imprudence" is not a crime in itself but simply a way of committing it and merely
death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by
determines a lower degree of criminal liability is too broad to deserve unqualified
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
assent. There are crimes that by their structure cannot be committed through
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or failing to imprudence: murder, treason, robbery, malicious mischief, etc. In truth, criminal
do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of negligence in our Revised Penal Code is treated as a mere quasi offense, and dealt
precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, with separately from willful offenses. It is not a mere question of classification or
taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, terminology. In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or
physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. imprudence, what is principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind
the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia
punible. x x x x

3
Were criminal negligence but a modality in the commission of felonies, operating Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution
only to reduce the penalty therefor, then it would be absorbed in the mitigating for the Same Quasi-Offense
circumstances of Art. 13, specially the lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as
the one actually committed. Furthermore, the theory would require that the The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by
corresponding penalty should be fixed in proportion to the penalty prescribed for itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or
each crime when committed willfully. For each penalty for the willful offense, there acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-
would then be a corresponding penalty for the negligent variety. But instead, our offense, regardless of its various resulting acts, undergirded this Courts unbroken
Revised Penal Code (Art. 365) fixes the penalty for reckless imprudence at arresto chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article 365 starting with
mayor maximum, to prision correccional [medium], if the willful act would People v. Diaz,25 decided in 1954. There, a full Court, speaking through Mr. Justice
constitute a grave felony, notwithstanding that the penalty for the latter could Montemayor, ordered the dismissal of a case for "damage to property thru reckless
range all the way from prision mayor to death, according to the case. It can be seen imprudence" because a prior case against the same accused for "reckless driving,"
that the actual penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation to the individual arising from the same act upon which the first prosecution was based, had been
willful crime, but is set in relation to a whole class, or series, of crimes. 18 (Emphasis dismissed earlier. Since then, whenever the same legal question was brought
supplied) before the Court, that is, whether prior conviction or acquittal of reckless
imprudence bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of
This explains why the technically correct way to allege quasi-crimes is to state that the consequences alleged for both charges, the Court unfailingly and consistently
their commission results in damage, either to person or property.19 answered in the affirmative in People v. Belga26 (promulgated in 1957 by the Court
en banc, per Reyes, J.), Yap v. Lutero27 (promulgated in 1959, unreported, per
Accordingly, we found the Justice of the Peace in Quizon without jurisdiction to Concepcion, J.), People v. Narvas28 (promulgated in 1960 by the Court en banc, per
hear a case for "Damage to Property through Reckless Imprudence," its jurisdiction Bengzon J.), People v. Silva29 (promulgated in 1962 by the Court en banc, per
being limited to trying charges for Malicious Mischief, an intentional crime Paredes, J.), People v. Macabuhay30 (promulgated in 1966 by the Court en banc, per
conceptually incompatible with the element of imprudence obtaining in quasi- Makalintal, J.), People v. Buan31 (promulgated in 1968 by the Court en banc, per
crimes. Reyes, J.B.L., acting C. J.), Buerano v. Court of Appeals32 (promulgated in 1982 by
the Court en banc, per Relova, J.), and People v. City Court of
Quizon, rooted in Spanish law20 (the normative ancestry of our present day penal Manila33 (promulgated in 1983 by the First Division, per Relova, J.). These cases
code) and since repeatedly reiterated,21 stands on solid conceptual foundation. The uniformly barred the second prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible under
contrary doctrinal pronouncement in People v. Faller 22 that "[r]eckless impudence the Double Jeopardy Clause.
is not a crime in itself x x x [but] simply a way of committing it x x x," 23 has long
been abandoned when the Court en banc promulgated Quizon in 1955 nearly two The reason for this consistent stance of extending the constitutional protection
decades after the Court decided Faller in 1939. Quizon rejected Fallers under the Double Jeopardy Clause to quasi-offenses was best articulated by Mr.
conceptualization of quasi-crimes by holding that quasi-crimes under Article 365 Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Buan, where, in barring a subsequent prosecution for "serious
are distinct species of crimes and not merely methods of committing crimes. Faller physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence" because of the
found expression in post-Quizon jurisprudence24 only by dint of lingering doctrinal accuseds prior acquittal of "slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence," with
confusion arising from an indiscriminate fusion of criminal law rules defining Article both charges grounded on the same act, the Court explained:34
365 crimes and the complexing of intentional crimes under Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code which, as will be shown shortly, rests on erroneous conception of quasi- Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or acquitted of a
crimes. Indeed, the Quizonian conception of quasi-crimes undergirded a related specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for
branch of jurisprudence applying the Double Jeopardy Clause to quasi-offenses, that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under
barring second prosecutions for a quasi-offense alleging one resulting act after a article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or
prior conviction or acquittal of a quasi-offense alleging another resulting act but negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law
arising from the same reckless act or omission upon which the second prosecution penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of
was based. the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not

4
qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injuries through reckless imprudence in the Court of First Instance of the province,
injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal where both charges are derived from the consequences of one and the same
negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into different crimes vehicular accident, because the second accusation places the appellant in second
and prosecutions.35 x x x (Emphasis supplied) jeopardy for the same offense.39 (Emphasis supplied)

Evidently, the Diaz line of jurisprudence on double jeopardy merely extended to its Thus, for all intents and purposes, Buerano had effectively overruled Estipona.
logical conclusion the reasoning of Quizon.
It is noteworthy that the Solicitor General in Buerano, in a reversal of his earlier
There is in our jurisprudence only one ruling going against this unbroken line of stance in Silva, joined causes with the accused, a fact which did not escape the
authority. Preceding Diaz by more than a decade, El Pueblo de Filipinas v. Courts attention:
Estipona,36 decided by the pre-war colonial Court in November 1940, allowed the
subsequent prosecution of an accused for reckless imprudence resulting in damage Then Solicitor General, now Justice Felix V. Makasiar, in his MANIFESTATION dated
to property despite his previous conviction for multiple physical injuries arising December 12, 1969 (page 82 of the Rollo) admits that the Court of Appeals erred in
from the same reckless operation of a motor vehicle upon which the second not sustaining petitioners plea of double jeopardy and submits that "its affirmatory
prosecution was based. Estiponas inconsistency with the post-war Diaz chain of decision dated January 28, 1969, in Criminal Case No. 05123-CR finding petitioner
jurisprudence suffices to impliedly overrule it. At any rate, all doubts on this matter guilty of damage to property through reckless imprudence should be set aside,
were laid to rest in 1982 in Buerano.37 There, we reviewed the Court of Appeals without costs." He stressed that "if double jeopardy exists where the reckless act
conviction of an accused for "damage to property for reckless imprudence" despite resulted into homicide and physical injuries. then the same consequence must
his prior conviction for "slight and less serious physical injuries thru reckless perforce follow where the same reckless act caused merely damage to property-not
imprudence," arising from the same act upon which the second charge was based. death-and physical injuries. Verily, the value of a human life lost as a result of a
The Court of Appeals had relied on Estipona. We reversed on the strength of vehicular collision cannot be equated with any amount of damages caused to a
Buan:38 motors vehicle arising from the same mishap."40 (Emphasis supplied)

Th[e] view of the Court of Appeals was inspired by the ruling of this Court in the Hence, we find merit in petitioners submission that the lower courts erred in
pre-war case of People vs. Estipona decided on November 14, 1940. However, in refusing to extend in his favor the mantle of protection afforded by the Double
the case of People vs. Buan, 22 SCRA 1383 (March 29, 1968), this Court, speaking Jeopardy Clause. A more fitting jurisprudence could not be tailored to petitioners
thru Justice J. B. L. Reyes, held that case than People v. Silva, 41 a Diaz progeny. There, the accused, who was also
involved in a vehicular collision, was charged in two separate Informations with
Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or acquitted of a "Slight Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence" and "Homicide with Serious
specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence." Following his acquittal of the former,
that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under the accused sought the quashal of the latter, invoking the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or The trial court initially denied relief, but, on reconsideration, found merit in the
negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law accuseds claim and dismissed the second case. In affirming the trial court, we
penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of quoted with approval its analysis of the issue following Diaz and its progeny People
the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not v. Belga:42
qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the
injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal On June 26, 1959, the lower court reconsidered its Order of May 2, 1959 and
negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into different crimes dismissed the case, holding:
and prosecutions.
[T]he Court believes that the case falls squarely within the doctrine of double
. . . the exoneration of this appellant, Jose Buan, by the Justice of the Peace (now jeopardy enunciated in People v. Belga, x x x In the case cited, Ciriaco Belga and
Municipal) Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan, of the charge of slight physical injuries Jose Belga were charged in the Justice of the Peace Court of Malilipot, Albay, with
through reckless imprudence, prevents his being prosecuted for serious physical the crime of physical injuries through reckless imprudence arising from a collision
5
between the two automobiles driven by them (Crim. Case No. 88). Without the The next question to determine is the relation between the first offense of violation
aforesaid complaint having been dismissed or otherwise disposed of, two other of the Motor Vehicle Law prosecuted before the Pasay City Municipal Court and the
criminal complaints were filed in the same justice of the peace court, in connection offense of damage to property thru reckless imprudence charged in the Rizal Court
with the same collision one for damage to property through reckless imprudence of First Instance. One of the tests of double jeopardy is whether or not the second
(Crim. Case No. 95) signed by the owner of one of the vehicles involved in the offense charged necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
collision, and another for multiple physical injuries through reckless imprudence charged in the former complaint or information (Rule 113, Sec. 9). Another test is
(Crim. Case No. 96) signed by the passengers injured in the accident. Both of these whether the evidence which proves one would prove the other that is to say
two complaints were filed against Jose Belga only. After trial, both defendants were whether the facts alleged in the first charge if proven, would have been sufficient to
acquitted of the charge against them in Crim. Case No. 88. Following his acquittal, support the second charge and vice versa; or whether one crime is an ingredient of
Jose Belga moved to quash the complaint for multiple physical injuries through the other. x x x
reckless imprudence filed against him by the injured passengers, contending that
the case was just a duplication of the one filed by the Chief of Police wherein he The foregoing language of the Supreme Court also disposes of the contention of the
had just been acquitted. The motion to quash was denied and after trial Jose Belga prosecuting attorney that the charge for slight physical injuries through reckless
was convicted, whereupon he appealed to the Court of First Instance of Albay. In imprudence could not have been joined with the charge for homicide with serious
the meantime, the case for damage to property through reckless imprudence filed physical injuries through reckless imprudence in this case, in view of the provisions
by one of the owners of the vehicles involved in the collision had been remanded to of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The prosecutions contention
the Court of First Instance of Albay after Jose Belga had waived the second stage of might be true. But neither was the prosecution obliged to first prosecute the
the preliminary investigation. After such remand, the Provincial Fiscal filed in the accused for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence before pressing the
Court of First Instance two informations against Jose Belga, one for physical injuries more serious charge of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless
through reckless imprudence, and another for damage to property through reckless imprudence. Having first prosecuted the defendant for the lesser offense in the
imprudence. Both cases were dismissed by the Court of First Instance, upon motion Justice of the Peace Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, which acquitted the defendant,
of the defendant Jose Belga who alleged double jeopardy in a motion to quash. On the prosecuting attorney is not now in a position to press in this case the more
appeal by the Prov. Fiscal, the order of dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme serious charge of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless
Court in the following language: . imprudence which arose out of the same alleged reckless imprudence of which the
defendant have been previously cleared by the inferior court. 43
The question for determination is whether the acquittal of Jose Belga in the case
filed by the chief of police constitutes a bar to his subsequent prosecution for Significantly, the Solicitor General had urged us in Silva to reexamine Belga (and
multiple physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence. hence, Diaz) "for the purpose of delimiting or clarifying its application." 44 We
declined the invitation, thus:
In the case of Peo[ple] v. F. Diaz, G. R. No. L-6518, prom. March 30, 1954, the
accused was charged in the municipal court of Pasay City with reckless driving The State in its appeal claims that the lower court erred in dismissing the case, on
under sec. 52 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, for having driven an automobile in the ground of double jeopardy, upon the basis of the acquittal of the accused in the
a fast and reckless manner ... thereby causing an accident. After the accused had JP court for Slight Physical Injuries, thru Reckless Imprudence. In the same breath
pleaded not guilty the case was dismissed in that court for failure of the said State, thru the Solicitor General, admits that the facts of the case at bar, fall
Government to prosecute. But some time thereafter the city attorney filed an squarely on the ruling of the Belga case x x x, upon which the order of dismissal of
information in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, charging the same accused with the lower court was anchored. The Solicitor General, however, urges a re-
damage to property thru reckless imprudence. The amount of the damage was examination of said ruling, upon certain considerations for the purpose of
alleged to be 249.50. Pleading double jeopardy, the accused filed a motion, and delimiting or clarifying its application. We find, nevertheless, that further
on appeal by the Government we affirmed the ruling. Among other things we there elucidation or disquisition on the ruling in the Belga case, the facts of which are
said through Mr. Justice Montemayor analogous or similar to those in the present case, will yield no practical advantage
to the government. On one hand, there is nothing which would warrant a
delimitation or clarification of the applicability of the Belga case. It was clear. On

6
the other, this Court has reiterated the views expressed in the Belga case, in the light felony, in which case charges were split by grouping, on the one hand,
identical case of Yap v. Hon. Lutero, etc., L-12669, April 30, 1959.45 (Emphasis resulting acts amounting to grave or less grave felonies and filing the charge with
supplied) the second level courts and, on the other hand, resulting acts amounting to light
felonies and filing the charge with the first level courts. 49 Expectedly, this is the
Article 48 Does not Apply to Acts Penalized approach the MeTC impliedly sanctioned (and respondent Ponce invokes), even
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code though under Republic Act No. 7691,50 the MeTC has now exclusive original
jurisdiction to impose the most serious penalty under Article 365 which is prision
The confusion bedeviling the question posed in this petition, to which the MeTC correccional in its medium period.
succumbed, stems from persistent but awkward attempts to harmonize
conceptually incompatible substantive and procedural rules in criminal law, namely, Under this approach, the issue of double jeopardy will not arise if the "complexing"
Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses and Article 48 on complexing of of acts penalized under Article 365 involves only resulting acts penalized as grave or
crimes, both under the Revised Penal Code. Article 48 is a procedural device less grave felonies because there will be a single prosecution of all the resulting
allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either of two acts. The issue of double jeopardy arises if one of the resulting acts is penalized as a
categories: (1) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave light offense and the other acts are penalized as grave or less grave offenses, in
felonies (thus excluding from its operation light felonies46); and (2) when an offense which case Article 48 is not deemed to apply and the act penalized as a light
is a necessary means for committing the other. The legislature crafted this offense is tried separately from the resulting acts penalized as grave or less grave
procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties, offenses.
will only serve the maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime.
The second jurisprudential path nixes Article 48 and sanctions a single prosecution
In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as a felony of all the effects of the quasi-crime collectively alleged in one charge, regardless of
but "the mental attitude x x x behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of their number or severity,51 penalizing each consequence separately. Thus, in
care or foresight x x x,"47 a single mental attitude regardless of the resulting Angeles v. Jose,52 we interpreted paragraph three of Article 365, in relation to a
consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in one or charge alleging "reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and less
more consequences. serious physical injuries," as follows:
Ordinarily, these two provisions will operate smoothly. Article 48 works to combine [T]he third paragraph of said article, x x x reads as follows:
in a single prosecution multiple intentional crimes falling under Titles 1-13, Book II
of the Revised Penal Code, when proper; Article 365 governs the prosecution of When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in
imprudent acts and their consequences. However, the complexities of human damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging
interaction can produce a hybrid quasi-offense not falling under either models from an amount equal to the value of said damage to three times such value, but
that of a single criminal negligence resulting in multiple non-crime damages to which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos.
persons and property with varying penalties corresponding to light, less grave or
grave offenses. The ensuing prosecutorial dilemma is obvious: how should such a The above-quoted provision simply means that if there is only damage to property
quasi-crime be prosecuted? Should Article 48s framework apply to "complex" the the amount fixed therein shall be imposed, but if there are also physical injuries
single quasi-offense with its multiple (non-criminal) consequences (excluding those there should be an additional penalty for the latter. The information cannot be split
amounting to light offenses which will be tried separately)? Or should the into two; one for the physical injuries, and another for the damage to property, x x
prosecution proceed under a single charge, collectively alleging all the x.53 (Emphasis supplied)
consequences of the single quasi-crime, to be penalized separately following the
scheme of penalties under Article 365? By "additional penalty," the Court meant, logically, the penalty scheme under
Article 365.
Jurisprudence adopts both approaches. Thus, one line of rulings (none of which
involved the issue of double jeopardy) applied Article 48 by "complexing" one Evidently, these approaches, while parallel, are irreconcilable. Coherence in this
quasi-crime with its multiple consequences48 unless one consequence amounts to a field demands choosing one framework over the other. Either (1) we allow the
7
"complexing" of a single quasi-crime by breaking its resulting acts into separate [W]e must perforce rule that the exoneration of this appellant x x x by the Justice of
offenses (except for light felonies), thus re-conceptualize a quasi-crime, abandon its the Peace x x x of the charge of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence,
present framing under Article 365, discard its conception under the Quizon and prevents his being prosecuted for serious physical injuries through reckless
Diaz lines of cases, and treat the multiple consequences of a quasi-crime as imprudence in the Court of First Instance of the province, where both charges are
separate intentional felonies defined under Titles 1-13, Book II under the penal derived from the consequences of one and the same vehicular accident, because
code; or (2) we forbid the application of Article 48 in the prosecution and the second accusation places the appellant in second jeopardy for the same
sentencing of quasi-crimes, require single prosecution of all the resulting acts offense.54 (Emphasis supplied)
regardless of their number and severity, separately penalize each as provided in
Article 365, and thus maintain the distinct concept of quasi-crimes as crafted under Indeed, this is a constitutionally compelled choice. By prohibiting the splitting of
Article 365, articulated in Quizon and applied to double jeopardy adjudication in charges under Article 365, irrespective of the number and severity of the resulting
the Diaz line of cases.1avvphi1 acts, rampant occasions of constitutionally impermissible second prosecutions are
avoided, not to mention that scarce state resources are conserved and diverted to
A becoming regard of this Courts place in our scheme of government denying it the proper use.
power to make laws constrains us to keep inviolate the conceptual distinction
between quasi-crimes and intentional felonies under our penal code. Article 48 is Hence, we hold that prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single
incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article 365. It is conceptually charge regardless of the number or severity of the consequences. In imposing
impossible for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a single act constituting two or more penalties, the judge will do no more than apply the penalties under Article 365 for
grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a necessary means for each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall be no splitting of
committing another. This is why, way back in 1968 in Buan, we rejected the charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the same first
Solicitor Generals argument that double jeopardy does not bar a second level court.55
prosecution for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence allegedly
because the charge for that offense could not be joined with the other charge for Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence following Article 48 of the simpler protection of their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Revised Penal Code: True, they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of the favorable sentencing
formula under Article 48, but any disadvantage thus caused is more than
The Solicitor General stresses in his brief that the charge for slight physical injuries compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying
through reckless imprudence could not be joined with the accusation for serious as "light offenses" (or, as here, for the more serious consequence prosecuted
physical injuries through reckless imprudence, because Article 48 of the Revised belatedly). If it is so minded, Congress can re-craft Article 365 by extending to
Penal Code allows only the complexing of grave or less grave felonies. This same quasi-crimes the sentencing formula of Article 48 so that only the most severe
argument was considered and rejected by this Court in the case of People vs. [Silva] penalty shall be imposed under a single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether
penalized as grave, less grave or light offenses. This will still keep intact the distinct
[T]he prosecutions contention might be true. But neither was the prosecution concept of quasi-offenses. Meanwhile, the lenient schedule of penalties under
obliged to first prosecute the accused for slight physical injuries through reckless Article 365, befitting crimes occupying a lower rung of culpability, should cushion
imprudence before pressing the more serious charge of homicide with serious the effect of this ruling.
physical injuries through reckless imprudence. Having first prosecuted the
defendant for the lesser offense in the Justice of the Peace Court of Meycauayan, WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE the Orders dated 2 February
Bulacan, which acquitted the defendant, the prosecuting attorney is not now in a 2006 and 2 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 157.
position to press in this case the more serious charge of homicide with serious We DISMISS the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 against petitioner Jason
physical injuries through reckless imprudence which arose out of the same alleged Ivler y Aguilar pending with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71 on
reckless imprudence of which the defendant has been previously cleared by the the ground of double jeopardy.
inferior court.
Let a copy of this ruling be served on the President of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives. SO ORDERED.
8
G.R. No. 131588 March 27, 2001 continued to travel on a high speed, this time putting off its headlights, thus hitting
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, the succeeding joggers on said 1st line, as a result thereof the following were killed
vs. on the spot:
GLENN DE LOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.
DAVIDE, JR., J.: 1. Vincent Labis Rosal 7. Antonio Flores Lasco

One may perhaps easily recall the gruesome and tragic event in Cagayan de Oro 2. Allan Amoguis Abis 8. Igmedio Salinas Lituanas
City, reported over print and broadcast media, which claimed the lives of several
members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) who were undergoing an 3. Jose Arden M. Atisa 9. Roberto Cabussao Loren
"endurance run" as part of the Special Counter Insurgency Operation Unit Training.
Not much effort was spared for the search of the one responsible therefor, as 4. Nathaniel Mugot Baculio 10. Raul Plaza Martinez
herein accused-appellant Glenn de los Santos (hereafter GLENN) immediately
surrendered to cal authorities. GLENN was then charged with the crimes of Multiple 5. Romil Gosila Legrano 11. Jerry Pedrosa Pajo
Murder, Multiple Frustrated Murder, and Multiple Attempted Murder in an
6. Arnulfo Limbago Jacutin 12. Rolando Paremcio Pancito
information filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. The
information reads as follows:
That on or about October 05, 1995, in the early morning, at Maitum Highway, While another trainee/victim, Antonio Palomino Mino, died few days after the
within Barangay Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the incident, while the following eleven (11) other trainee/victims were seriously
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate wounded, the accused thus performing all the acts of execution which would
intent to kill, taking advantage of his driven motor vehicle, an Isuzu Elf, and with produce the crime of Murder as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it
treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kill and inflict by reason of some cause other than said accuseds spontaneous desistance, that is,
mortal wounds from behind in a sudden and unexpected manner with the use of by the timely and able medical assistance rendered on the following victims which
said vehicle members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), undergoing a prevented their death, to wit:
Special Training Course (Scout Class 07-95), wearing black T-shirts and black short
pants, performing an "Endurance Run" of 35 kilometers coming from their camp in 1. Rey Go Boquis 7. Melchor Hinlo
Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, heading to Regional Training Headquarters in Camp
Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City, running in a column of 3, with a distance of two feet, 2. Rene Tuako Calabria 8. Noel Ganzan Oclarit
more or less, from one trainee to another, thus forming a [sic] three lines, with a
length of more or less 50 meters from the 1st man to the last man, unable to defend 3. Nonata Ibarra Erno 9. Charito Penza Gepala
themselves, because the accused ran or moved his driven vehicle on the direction
of the backs of the PNP joggers in spite of the continuous warning signals made by 4. Rey Tamayo Estofil 10. Victor Malicse Olavo
six of the joggers, namely: PO1 Allan Tabacon Espana, Waldon Sinda Sacro, Lemuel
Ybanez Pangca, Artemio Jamil Villaflor, Nardo Omasas Collantes and Joselito Buyser 5. Joel Rey Migue 11. Bimbo Glade Polboroza
Escartin, who were at the rear echelon of said run, acting as guards, by Galendez
continuously waving their hands at the accused for him to take the left lane of the
6. Arman Neri Hernaiz
highway, going to the City proper, from a distance of 100 meters away from the
joggers rear portion, but which accused failed and refused to heed; instead, he
proceeded to operate his driven vehicle (an Isuzu Elf) on high speed directly While the following Police Officers I (POI) sustained minor injuries, to wit:
towards the joggers, thus forcing the rear hitting, bumping, or ramming the first
four (4) victims, causing the bodies to be thrown towards the windshields of said 1. Romanito Andrada 6. Romualdo Cotor Dacera
Isuzu Elf, breaking said windshield, and upon being aware that bodies of the victims
flew on the windshield of his driven vehicle, instead of applying his brake,
9
reduce his speed even after hitting the first and second columns. The guards then
2. Richard Canoy Caday 7. Ramil Rivas Gaisano
stopped oncoming vehicles to prevent their comrades from being hit again.3
3. Rey Cayusa 8. Dibangkita Magandang
The trial court judge, together with the City Prosecutor, GLENN and his counsel,
4. Avelino Chua 9. Martin Olivero Pelarion conducted an ocular inspection of the place where the incident happened. They
then proceeded to inspect the Isuzu Elf at the police station. The City Prosecutor
5. Henry Gadis Coubeta 10. Flordicante Martin Piligro manifested, thus:

The vehicle which we are now inspecting at the police station is the same vehicle
After which said accused thereafter escaped from the scene of the incident, leaving which [was] involved in the October 5, 1995 incident, an Isuzu Elf vehicle colored
behind the victims afore-enumerated helpless. light blue with strips painting along the side colored orange and yellow as well as in
front. We further manifest that the windshield was totally damaged and 2/3
Contrary to Article 248, in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. portion of the front just below the windshield was heavily dented as a consequence
of the impact. The lower portion was likewise damaged more particularly in the
The evidence for the prosecution disclose that the Special Counter Insurgency
radiator guard. The bumper of said vehicle was likewise heavily damaged in fact
Operation Unit Training held at Camp Damilag, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, started
there is a cut of the plastic used as a bumper; that the right side of the headlight
on 1 September 1995 and was to end on 15 October 1995. The last phase of the
was likewise totally damaged. The front signal light, right side was likewise
training was the "endurance run" from said Camp to Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro
damaged. The side mirror was likewise totally damaged. The height of the truck
City. The run on 5 October 1995 started at 2:20 a.m. The PNP trainees were divided
from the ground to the lower portion of the windshield is 5 ft. and the height of the
into three columns; the first and second of which had 22 trainees each, and the
truck on the front level is 5 ft.4
third had 21. The trainees were wearing black T-shirts, black short pants, and green
and black combat shoes. At the start of the run, a Hummer vehicle tailed the PO3 Jose Cabugwas testified that he was assigned at the Investigation Division at
jogging trainees. When they reached Alae, the driver of the Hummer vehicle was Precinct 6, Cagayan de Oro City, and that at 4 a.m. of 5 October 1995, several
instructed to dispatch advanced security at strategic locations in Carmen Hill. Since members of the PNP came to their station and reported that they had been
the jogging trainees were occupying the right lane of the highway, two rear security bumped by a certain vehicle. Immediately after receiving the report, he and two
guards were assigned to each rear column. Their duty was to jog backwards facing other policemen proceeded to the traffic scene to conduct an ocular inspection.
the oncoming vehicles and give hand signals for other vehicles to take the left lane. 1 Only bloodstains and broken particles of the hit-and-run vehicle remained on the
highway. They did not see any brake marks on the highway, which led him to
Prosecution witnesses Lemuel Y. Pangca and Weldon Sacro testified that they were
conclude that the brakes of the vehicle had not been applied. The policemen
assigned as rear guards of the first column. They recalled that from Alae to Maitum
measured the bloodstains and found them to be 70 ft. long. 5
Highway, Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City, about 20 vehicles passed them, all of which
slowed down and took the left portion of the road when signaled to do so. 2 GLENNs version of the events that transpired that evening is as follows:
While they were negotiating Maitum Highway, they saw an Isuzu Elf truck coming At about 10:30 p.m. of 4 October 1995, he was asked by his friend Enting Galindez
at high speed towards them. The vehicle lights were in the high beam. At a distance and the latters fellow band members to provide them with transportation, if
of 100 meters, the rear security guards started waving their hands for the vehicle to possible an Isuzu Forward, that would bring their band instruments, band utilities
take the other side of the road, but the vehicle just kept its speed, apparently and band members from Macasandig and Corrales, Cagayan de Oro City, to
ignoring their signals and coming closer and closer to them. Realizing that the Balingoan. From there, they were supposed to be taken to Mambajao, Camiguin, to
vehicle would hit them, the rear guards told their co-trainees to "retract." The participate in the San Miguel-sponsored "Sabado Nights" of the Lanzones Festival
guards forthwith jumped in different directions. Lemuel and Weldon saw their co- from 5-7 October 1995. It was the thirteenth time that Enting had asked such a
trainees being hit by the said vehicle, falling like dominoes one after the other. favor from him.6 Since the arrangement was to fetch Galindez and his group at 4:00
Some were thrown, and others were overrun by the vehicle. The driver did not a.m. of 5 October 1995, GLENN immediately went to Cugman, Cagayan de Oro City,
to get his Isuzu Elf truck. After which, he proceeded back to his house at Bugo,
10
Cagayan de Oro City, and told his wife that he would go to Bukidnon to get his incident to the Puerto Police Station because he was not aware of what exactly he
aunts Isuzu Forward truck because the twenty band members and nine utilities and had hit. It was only when he reached his house that he noticed that the grill of the
band instruments could not be accommodated in the Isuzu Elf truck. Three of his truck was broken; the side mirror and round mirror, missing; and the windshield,
friends asked to go along, namely, Roldan Paltonag, Andot Pea, and a certain splintered. Two hours later, he heard on Bombo Radyo that an accident had
Akut.7 occurred, and he realized that it was the PNP group that he had hit. GLENN
surrendered that same day to Governor Emano.11
After leaving GLENNs house, the group decided to stop at Celebrity Plaza
Restaurant. GLENN saw his "kumpare" Danilo Cosin and the latters wife, and joined The defense also presented Crescente Galindez, as well as Shirley Almazan of the
them at the table. GLENN finished three bottles of pale pilsen beer. When the Cosin PAG-ASA Office, Cagayan de Oro City. The former testified that when he went to
spouses left, GLENN joined his travelling companions at their table. The group left GLENNs house at about 10:00 p.m. of 4 October 1995, there was heavy rain; and at
at 12:00 midnight for Bukidnon. The environment was dark and foggy, with 12:00 midnight, the rain was moderate. He corroborated GLENNs testimony that
occasional rains. It took them sometime looking for the Isuzu Forward truck. Finally, he (Cerscente) went to GLENNs house that evening in order to hire a truck that
they saw the truck in Agusan Canyon. Much to their disappointment, the said truck would bring the band instruments, band utilities and band members from Cagayan
had mechanical problems. Hence, GLENN decided to go back to Cagayan de Oro de Oro to Camiguin for the Lanzones Festival. 12 Almazan, on the other hand,
City to tell Enting that they would use the Isuzu Elf truck instead. 8 testified that based on an observed weather report within the vicinity of Cagayan
de Oro City, there was rain from 8:00 p.m. of October 1995 to 2:00 a.m. the next
GLENN drove slowly because the road was slippery. The vicinity was dark: there day; and the sky was overcast from 11:00 p.m. of 4 October 1995 to 5:00 a.m. of 5
was no moon or star; neither were there lampposts. From the Alae junction, he and October 1995. What she meant by "overcast" is that there was no break in the sky;
his companions used the national highway, traversing the right lane going to and, definitely, the moon and stars could not be seen. 13
Cagayan de Oro City. At the vicinity of Mambatangan junction, as the Elf was
negotiating a left curve going slightly downward, GLENN saw a very bright and The prosecution presented rebuttal witness Danilo Olarita whose house was just
glaring light coming from the opposite direction of the national highway. GLENN 100 meters away from the place where the incident occurred. He testified that he
blinked his headlights as a signal for the other driver to switch his headlights from was awakened on that fateful night by a series of loud thuds. Thereafter, a man
bright to dim. GLENN switched his own lights from bright to dim and reduced his came to his house and asked for a glass of water, claiming to have been hit by a
speed from 80 to 60 kilometers per hour. It was only when the vehicles were at a vehicle. Danilo further stated that the weather at the time was fair, and that the
distance of 10 to 15 meters from each other that the other cars headlights were soil was dry and not muddy.14
switched from bright to dim. As a result, GLENN found it extremely hard to adjust
from high brightness to sudden darkness.9 In its decision of 26 August 1997, the trial court convicted GLENN of the complex
crime of multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder and multiple attempted
It was while the truck was still cruising at a speed of 60 km./hr., and immediately murder, with the use of motor vehicle as the qualifying circumstance. It sentenced
after passing the oncoming vehicle, that GLENN suddenly heard and felt bumping him to suffer the penalty of death and ordered him to indemnify each group of the
thuds. At the sound of the first bumping thuds, GLENN put his right foot on the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P75,000; each of the victims of frustrated
brake pedal. But the impact was so sudden that he was astonished and afraid. He murder in the amount of P30,000; and each of the victims of attempted murder in
was trembling and could not see what were being bumped. At the succeeding the amount of P10,000.
bumping thuds, he was not able to pump the brake, nor did he notice that his foot
was pushing the pedal. He returned to his senses only when one of his companions Hence, this automatic review, wherein GLENN contends that the trial court erred
woke up and said to him: "Gard, it seems we bumped on something. Just relax, we (a) in finding that he caused the Isuzu Elf truck to hit the trainees even after seeing
might all die." Due to its momentum, the Elf continued on its track and was able to the rear guards waving and the PNP trainees jogging; (b) in finding that he caused
stop only when it was already very near the next curve.10 the truck to run even faster after noticing the first thuds; and (c) in finding that he
could still have avoided the accident from a distance of 150 meters, despite the
GLENN could not distinguish in the darkness what he had hit, especially since the bright and glaring light from the oncoming vehicle.
right headlights of the truck had been busted upon the first bumping thuds. In his
confusion and fear, he immediately proceeded home. GLENN did not report the
11
In convicting GLENN, the trial court found that "the accused out of mischief and GLENNs vehicle was traversing. Worse, they were facing the same direction as
dare-devilness [sic], in the exhilaration of the night breeze and having dr[u]nk at GLENNs truck such that their backs were turned towards the oncoming vehicles
least three bottles of beer earlier, merely wanted to scare the rear guard[s] and see from behind.
them scamper away as they saw him and his vehicle coming at them to ram them
down."15 Fourth, no convincing evidence was presented to rebut GLENNs testimony that he
had been momentarily blinded by the very bright and glaring lights of the oncoming
Likewise, the OSG posits that "the evil motive of the appellant in injuring the vehicle at the opposite direction as his truck rounded the curve. He must have been
jogging trainees was probably brought by the fact that he had dr[u]nk a total of still reeling from the blinding effect of the lights coming from the other vehicle
three (3) bottles of beer earlier before the incident."16 when he plowed into the group of police trainees.

Not to be outdone, the defense also advances another speculation, i.e., "the Indeed, as pointed out by appellant, instinct tells one to stop or swerve to a safe
possibility that [GLENN] could have fallen asleep out of sheer fatigue in that unholy place the moment he sees a cow, dog, or cat on the road, in order to avoid
hour of 3:30 in the early morning, and thus was not able to stop his Isuzu Elf truck bumping or killing the same"; and more so if the one on the road is a person. It
when the bumping thuds were occurring in rapid succession; and after he was able would therefore be inconceivable for GLENN, then a young college graduate with a
to wake up upon hearing the shout of his companions, it was already too late, as pregnant wife and three very young children who were dependent on him for
the bumping thuds had already occurred."17 support, to have deliberately hit the group with his truck.

Considering that death penalty is involved, the trial court should have been more The conclusion of the trial court and the OSG the GLENN intentionally rammed and
scrupulous in weighing the evidence. It we are to subscribe to the trial courts hit the jogging trainees was premised on the assumption that despite the first
finding that GLENN must have merely wanted to scare the rear guards, then intent bumping thuds, he continued to accelerate his vehicle instead of applying his
to kill was wanting. In the absence of a criminal intent, he cannot be held liable for brakes, as shown by the absence of brake marks or skid marks along the traffic
an intentional felony. All reasonable doubt intended to demonstrate negligence, scene.
and not criminal intent, should be indulged.18
For its part, the defense attributed the continuous movement of GLENNs vehicle to
From the convergence of circumstances, we are inclined to believe that the tragic the confluence of the following factors:
event was more a product of reckless imprudence than of a malicious intent on
GLENNs part. 1. The Isuzu Elf truck, a huge vehicle, was moving fast that even if the brakes were
applied the truck would have still proceeded further on account of its momentum,
First, as testified to by prosecution rebuttal witness Danilo Olarita, the place of the albeit at a reduced speed, and would have stopped only after a certain distance.
incident was "very dark," as there was no moon. And according to PAG-ASAs
observed weather report within the vicinity of Cagayan de Oro City covering a 2. The national highway, from Alae to Puerto, Cagayan de Oro City, was made of
radius of 50 kilometers, at the time the event took place, the sky was overcast, i.e., fine and smooth asphalt, free from obstructions on the road such as potholes or
there was absolutely no break in the thick clouds covering the celestial dome globe; excavations. Moreover, the highway was going a little bit downward, more
hence, there was no way for the moon and stars to be seen. Neither were there particularly from the first curve to the place of incident. Hence, it was easier and
lampposts that illuminated the highway.1wphi1.nt faster to traverse a distance "20 to 25 meters which was the approximate
aggregate distance" from the first elements up to the 22nd or 23rd elements of the
Second, the jogging trainees and the rear guards were all wearing black T-shirts, columns.
black short pants, and black and green combat shoes, which made them hard to
make out on that dark and cloudy night. The rear guards had neither reflectorized 3. The weight of each of the trainees (the average of which could be 50 kilograms
vests or gloves nor flashlights in giving hand signals. only) could hardly make an impact on the 3,900 kilograms truck, which was moving
at a speed ranging from 60 to 70 kilometers per hour.
Third, GLENN was driving on the proper side of the road, the right lane. On the
other hand, the jogging trainees were occupying the wrong lane, the same lane as
12
4. Considering that the width of the truck from the right to the left tires was wide and for acts which no one would have performed except through culpable
and the under chassis was elevated, the truck could just pass over two persons abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and property, and those of his fellow-
lying flat on the ground without its rubber tires running over the bodies. Thus, beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury.24
GLENN would not notice any destabilization of the rubber tires.
The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby
5. Since the police trainees were jogging in the same direction as the truck was injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: Could a
proceeding, the forward movements constituted a force parallel to the momentum prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed,
of the forward-moving truck such that there was even much lesser force resisting foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course
the said ongoing momentum. actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that
course or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the
It is a well-entrenched rule that if the inculpatory facts are capable of two or more failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by
explanations one consistent with the innocence or lesser degree of liability of the the ignoring of the admonition born of this prevision, is always necessary before
accused, and the other consistent with his guilt or graver responsibility the Court negligence can be held to exist.25
should adopt the explanation which is more favorable to the accused. 19
GLENN showed an inexcusable lack of precaution. Article 365 of the Revised Penal
We are convinced that the incident, tragic though it was in light of the number of Code states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice,
persons killed and seriously injured, was an accident and not an intentional felony. doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
It is significant to note that there is no shred of evidence that GLENN had an axe to inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to
grind against the police trainees that would drive him into deliberately hitting them perform such act, taking into consideration (1) his employment or occupation; (2)
with intent to kill. his degree of intelligence; (4) his physical condition; and (3) other circumstances
regarding persons, time and place.
Although proof of motive is not indispensable to a conviction especially where the
assailant is positively identified, such proof is, nonetheless, important in GLENN, being then a young college graduate and an experienced driver, should
determining which of two conflicting theories of the incident is more likely to be have known to apply the brakes or swerve to a safe place immediately upon
true.20 Thus, in People v. Godinez,21 this Court said that the existence of a motive on hearing the first bumping thuds to avoid further hitting the other trainees. By his
the part of the accused becomes decisive in determining the probability or own testimony, it was established that the road was slippery and slightly going
credibility of his version that the shooting was purely accidental. downward; and, worse, the place of the incident was foggy and dark. He should
have observed due care in accordance with the conduct of a reasonably prudent
Neither is there any showing of "a political angle of a leftist-sponsored massacre of man, such as by slackening his speed, applying his brakes, or turning to the left side
police elements disguised in a vehicular accident." 22 Even if there be such even if it would mean entering the opposite lane (there being no evidence that a
evidence, i.e., that the motive of the killing was in furtherance of a rebellion vehicle was coming from the opposite direction). It is highly probable that he was
movement, GLENN cannot be convicted because if such were the case, the proper driving at high speed at the time. And even if he was driving within the speed limits,
charge would be rebellion, and not murder.23 this did not mean that he was exercising due care under the existing circumstances
and conditions at the time.
GLENNs offense is in failing to apply the brakes, or to swerve his vehicle to the left
or to a safe place the movement he heard and felt the first bumping thuds. Had he Considering that the incident was not a product of a malicious intent but rather the
done so, many trainees would have been spared. result of a single act of reckless driving, GLENN should be held guilty of the complex
crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide with serious physical
We have once said:
injuries and less serious physical injuries.
A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the single act constitutes
duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of
two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means
incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee
for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed,
13
the same to be applied in its maximum period. Since Article 48 speaks of felonies, it exercise its sound discretion without regard to the rules prescribed in Article 64.
is applicable to crimes through negligence in view of the definition of felonies in Elsewise stated, in felonies through imprudence or negligence, modifying
Article 3 as "acts or omissions punishable by law" committed either by means of circumstances need not be considered in the imposition of the penalty. 32
deceit {dolo) or fault (culpa).26 In Reodica v. Court of Appeals,27 we ruled that if a
reckless, imprudent, or negligent act results in two or more grave or less grave In the case at bar, it has been alleged in the information and proved during the trial
felonies, a complex crime is committed. Thus, in Lapuz v. Court of Appeals,28 the that GLENN "escaped from the scene of the incident, leaving behind the victims." It
accused was convicted, in conformity with Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, of being crystal clear that GLENN failed to render aid to the victims, the penalty
the complex crime of "homicide with serious physical injuries and damage to provided for under Article 365 shall be raised by one degree. Hence, for reckless
property through reckless imprudence," and was sentenced to a single penalty of imprudence resulting in multiple homicide with serious physical injuries and less
imprisonment, instead of the two penalties imposed by the trial court. Also, serious physical injuries, the penalty would be prision correccional in its maximum
in Soriao v. Court of Appeals,29 the accused was convicted of the complex crime of period to prision mayor in its medium period. Applying Article 48, the maximum of
"multiple homicide with damage to property through reckless imprudence" for said penalty, which is prision mayor in its medium period, should be imposed. For
causing a motor boat to capsize, thereby drowning to death its twenty-eight the separate offenses of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries,
passengers. GLENN may be sentenced to suffer, for each count, the penalty of arresto mayor in
its minimum period.
The slight physical injuries caused by GLENN to the ten other victims through
reckless imprudence, would, had they been intentional, have constituted light Although it was established through the testimonies of prosecution witness Lemuel
felonies. Being light felonies, which are not covered by Article 48, they should be Pangca33 and of GLENN that the latter surrendered to Governor Emano of Misamis
treated and punished as separate offenses. Separate informations should have, Oriental, such mitigating circumstance need not be considered pursuant to the
therefore, been filed. aforestated fifth paragraph of Article 365.

It must be noted that only one information (for multiple murder, multiple Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, GLENN may be sentenced to suffer an
frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder) was filed with the trial court. indeterminate penalty whose minimum is within the range of the penalty next
However, nothing appears in the record that GLENN objected to the multiplicity of lower in degree to that prescribed for the offense, and whose maximum is that
the information in a motion to quash before his arraignment. Hence, he is deemed which could properly be imposed taking into account the modifying circumstances.
to have waived such defect.30Under Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, when Hence, for the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide
two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information and the with serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries, qualified by his
accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict the accused of as failure to render assistance to the victims, he may be sentenced to suffer an
many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each indeterminate penalty ranging from arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
of them. correccional in its medium period, as minimum, to prision mayor in its medium
period, as maximum. As to the crimes of reckless imprudence resulting in slight
Now, we come to the penalty. Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, any physical injuries, since the maximum term for each count is only two months the
person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been Indeterminate Sentence Law will not apply.
intentional, would constitute a grave felony shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; and if it As far as the award of damages is concerned, we find a necessity to modify the
would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum same. Conformably with current jurisprudence,34 we reduce the trial courts award
period shall be imposed. The last paragraph thereof provides that the penalty next of death indemnity from P75,000 to P50,000 for each group of heirs of the trainees
higher in degree shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot killed. Likewise, for lack of factual basis, we delete the awards of P30,000 to each of
to the injured parties such help as may be in his hand to give. This failure to render those who suffered serious physical injuries and of P10,000 to each of those who
assistance to the victim, therefore, constitutes a qualifying circumstance because suffered minor physical injuries.
the presence thereof raises the penalty by one degree. 31Moreover, the fifth
paragraph thereof provides that in the imposition of the penalty, the court shall WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro
City, is hereby SET ASIDE, and another one is rendered holding herein accused-
14
appellant GLENN DE LOS SANTOS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (1) the
complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide with serious
physical injuries and less serious physical injuries, and sentencing him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten
(10) years of prision mayor, as maximum; and (2) ten (10) counts of reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries and sentencing him, for each count,
to the penalty of two (2) months of arresto mayor. Furthermore, the awards of
death indemnity for each group of heirs of the trainees killed are reduced to
P50,000; and the awards in favor of the other victims are deleted. Costs against
accused-appellant.1wphi1.nt

SO ORDERED.

15
G.R. No. 140386 November 29, 2001 Baguio fell down and rolled facing downward, accused Renny Boy Acosta rushed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff appellee, towards the victim and took his turn in stabbing him.
vs.
BENNY ACOSTA AND RENNY BOY ACOSTA, accused, Baguio was helped by his companions. Although he died shortly thereafter, Baguio
BENNY ACOSTA, accused-appellant. was able to tell his companions who his assailant was. He pointed to accused-
MENDOZA, J.: appellant Benny Acosta.7

This is an appeal from the decision,1 dated August 19, 1999, of the Regional Trial The postmortem examination on the body of the victim shows that he sustained
Court, Branch 44, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, insofar as it finds one of the the following wounds:
accused, Benny Acosta, guilty of murder and sentences him to suffer the penalty
1. Wound, stabbed, left back, at the level of the posterior axillary line, and at the
of reclusion perpetua and to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for
level of the tip of the scapula, 1 inch long, by inch width by 5 inch deep,
the death of Norton Baguio.
directed to midline wound, is lying over the scapular bone;
The facts are as follows:
2. Wound, stabbed, back left lumber area, 1 inch long by inch width by 6 inches
On April 14, 1993, accused-appellant Benny Acosta was charged, together with his
deep, directed anteriorly. Wound is L shaped. White T-shirt is shown bloodied, with
son Renny Boy Acosta, with murder in an information which alleged
the holes, which are much bigger than the wounds.
That on or about past midnight of March 14, 1993, at sitio Tuway, barangay P.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Internal Hemorrhage8
Zamora, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating Dr. Fe L. Mercado, who conducted the postmortem examination, testified that a
with and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and with sharp pointed instrument, such as a hunting knife, could have been used in
abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inflicting the two wounds suffered by the victim, both of which caused internal
attack, assault and stab one Norton Baguio, thereby causing stab wounds on the hemorrhage which proved to be fatal. She testified that the direction of the first
back of said victim who instantaneously died as a result thereof, to the damage and wound on the left upper back was downward to the midline and that it was
prejudice of the heirs of said Norton Baguio.2 possible that the victim was standing when he was stabbed. He further testified
that the second wound on the left lumbar area was from the back anteriorly to the
When arraigned on November 3, 1993, both accused pleaded not guilty,
front and it was probable that the victim may either be standing or sitting down
whereupon they were tried.3
when the wound was inflicted.9
The prosecution presented six witnesses, to wit, Dr. Fe L. Mercado, SPO2 Cecilio
SPO2 Cecilio Nilles, custodian of the police force, testified that on March 15, 1993, a
Nilles, Hansel Caete, Joy Boganutan,4 Leonilo Baguio, and Adelia Patricio. The gist
long bladed knife with a scabbard was turned over to him for safekeeping. He said
of their testimonies is as follows:
that on the night of March 14, 1993, accused Renny Boy Acosta surrendered a
At about 9 o'clock in the evening of March 13, 1993, the victim Norton Baguio, hunting knife.10
together with Hansel Caete, Leonardo Cabunalis,5 and Joy Boganutan, attended a
Adelia Patricio, aunt of the deceased victim, testified on the expenses incurred by
dance in celebration of the town fiesta at Sitio Tuway, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental.
the family of the victim as a result of his death. She said that she spent P6,000.00
The dance was held in an open space, lighted by two petromax lamps installed
for the embalming and coffin, P2,500.00 for the snacks and food during the wake,
opposite each other.6
and other miscellaneous expenses, totaling P13,300.00. In addition, she testified,
At about past 12 o'clock midnight of March 14, 1993, the four decided to go home. she spent P300.00 for the filing of the case, attorney's fees, fares, and food, all
Somewhere on the way, Norton Baguio stopped to urinate at the back of a store, totaling P13,850.00. All in all, she spent about P30,000.00. However, she admitted
while his companions waited for him. As Baguio was thus urinating, accused- on cross-examination that she had no receipts for the amount she spent for the
appellant Benny Acosta suddenly attacked and stabbed him from behind. When
16
vigil, burial, and other related expenses, save for the attorney's fees which she did Renny Boy, however, was able to parry the blow and draw his hunting knife which
not present.11 he used to stab the victim. Renny Boy admitted that he stabbed the victim twice,
on the right side of the stomach and on another spot which he could not
On the other hand, the defense presented six witnesses, namely, SPO4 Arnold remember. After the incident, Renny Boy ran to his house and slept. He
Perez,12 Joel Sayon, Dr. Rogelio Regalado, Chief Inspector Constantino Baguio, surrendered to SPO4 Perez on March 15, 1993 and was incarcerated in the
accused Renny Boy Acosta, and accused-appellant Benny Acosta. municipal hall jail.15
Accused-appellant's defense was alibi. He claimed that from 5 o'clock in the The testimony of accused Renny Boy Acosta was corroborated by the testimony of
afternoon of March 13, 1993 until around 1 o'clock in the morning of the next day, Joel Sayon.16
March 14, 1993, he was out on the sea fishing. After fishing, he went to the house
of a certain Romulo Perez, sold his catch, and saw a betamax film. He afterward The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses,
went home and rested. Accused-appellant testified that he did not know that he Hansel Caete and Joy Boganutan, even as it rejected the defense of alibi of
had been implicated in the killing of Norton Baguio until he was awakened by the accused-appellant Benny Acosta and the claim of self-defense of the other accused,
call of several policemen while he was asleep at home in the morning of March 14, Renny Boy Acosta.17 The mitigating circumstance of minority was appreciated in
1993. favor of accused Renny Boy Acosta, considering that he was under 18 years of age
at the time of the commission of the crime on March 14, 1993, it appearing that he
On cross-examination, accused-appellant admitted that his house was near the was born on September 5, 1975.18
seashore and that the dance hall, where the stabbing of the victim took place, was
only a 10 minute walk from the seashore. In fact, he said the music from the dance On August 19, 1999, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of
hall could be heard from the seashore. However, accused-appellant reiterated that which reads:
he was not in the dance hall at the time of the stabbing and denied that the knife
and scabbard belonged to him.13 WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, accused BENNY ACOSTA and RENNY
BOY ACOSTA are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
SPO4 Arnold Perez, operations officer of the Guihulngan Police Station, testified murder. Accordingly, the Court hereby imposes upon the accused BENNY ACOSTA
that at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of March 13, 1993, he met accused- the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused RENNY BOY ACOSTA shall suffer an
appellant while the latter was on his way to the sea. Accused-appellant came back indeterminate prison term of SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
from the sea at past 12 o'clock midnight to sell his catch. Perez said he bought fish TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS AND TEN (10) DAYS of reclusion temporal, as
from accused-appellant and that the latter stayed in his house for a while in order maximum. Both accused shall indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of FIFTY
to watch a betamax show. He claimed that later in the morning of March 14, 1993, THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 50,000.00), and to pay the costs.
he learned that accused-appellant had been arrested and detained, although he
found out that it was accused Renny Boy Acosta who had stabbed the victim. Perez In the service of their sentence, both accused shall be credited in full of their
said he examined the knife and scabbard used in the killing and saw blood inside preventive imprisonment.
the scabbard. He testified that while his station conducted an investigation on
accused Renny Boy Acosta, it was the 333rd PC Company which investigated Let the persons of both accused be immediately transmitted to the National
accused-appellant Benny Acosta.14 Penetentiary (sic), Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila.

Accused Renny Boy Acosta testified that in the evening of March 13, 1993, he met SO ORDERED.19
Joel Sayon in the dance hall. They both agreed to go home together at around 12
Only Benny Acosta has appealed.20 He contends that:
o'clock midnight. On the way home, Sayon asked Renny Boy for a cigarette. As
Renny Boy did not have any, he went to buy some cigarettes. Just then, Sayon saw I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE ALIBI ASSERTED BY ACCUSED
Norton armed with an ice pick about to strike Renny Boy. Sayon shouted, "Watch BENNY ACOSTA IN THE FACE OF HIS UNRELIABLE IDENTIFICATION AND THE WEAK,
[out] Boy, Norton will stab you." Renny Boy jumped, but Sayon was hit. Norton
Baguio then turned to Renny Boy Acosta and was about to hit him with an ice pick.
17
IMPROBABLE, INCONSISTENT AND UNCERTAIN TESTIMONIES OF THE Q But the appearance of the wound, could you not determine whether the
EYEWITNESSES OF THE PROSECUTION. same kind of weapon was used or you have difficulty in determining it?

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE SELF- A It is difficult for me to determine, but it is possible.24
DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF STRANGER PROFESSED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT (sic)
RENNY BOY ACOSTA.21 Thus, what Dr. Mercado said was that it was difficult to determine whether one and
the same kind of weapon was used to inflict the two fatal wounds. Such statement
We find accused-appellant's contentions to be without merit. does not refer to the number of assailants of the victim nor to the number of
weapons used against him.
First. Accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving credence to the
testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses, Boganutan and Caete. Accused- Second. Prosecution eyewitnesses Boganutan and Caete pointed to accused-
appellant argues that the testimonies of Boganutan and Caete are inconsistent for appellant and his son and co-accused Renny Boy Acosta as the perpetrators of the
whereas Boganutan testified that accused-appellant passed by the group of Caete, crime. The defense, however, claims that Renny Boy Acosta alone stabbed the
Cabunalis, and Boganutan on his way to attacking the victim, Caete declared victim and only in self-defense. Accused-appellant insists on his alibi that he was
otherwise. out on the sea fishing at the time of the incident. For alibi to prosper, however, it is
not enough for the accused to prove that he was elsewhere when the crime was
This contention has no merit. Caete and Boganutan both testified that accused- committed, but he must also show that it was physically impossible for him to have
appellant was indeed in the dance hall and that he was one of those who killed the been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.25 As an element of a
victim by stabbing the latter from behind. Whether or not accused-appellant credible alibi, physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where
passed by their group prior to the attack refers to a mere collateral matter which in the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed,
fact strengthens, rather than negates, their credibility as witnesses. Variations in as well as the facility of access between the two places.26
the declarations of witnesses in respect of collateral or incidental matters do not
impair the weight of their testimonies, taken in their entirety, to the prominent In the case at bar, although accused-appellant claims that he was out in the sea
facts, nor per se preclude the establishment of the crime and the positive fishing at the time of the commission of the crime, he has not shown that it was
identification of the malefactor.22 Further, the claim of accused-appellant that the physically impossible for him to have been at the dance hall at the time Norton
two eyewitnesses were far from the place where the incident took place and that Baguio was stabbed. Accused-appellant could have very well been in the dance hall
they were seated at a lighted place in the dance hall while the victim was urinating at around 12 o'clock midnight when the incident happened as he himself admitted
at a dark place are nothing but pure conjectures. Boganutan and Caete that it was merely a 10 minute walk from the seashore, which was near his house,
categorically stated that they were only five strides, more or less, or about six to the dance hall.27 Thus, accused-appellant could have easily left his house at 12
meters, away from the victim and that the place was well lighted at the time of the o'clock, proceeded to the dance hall, and then gone fishing without much difficulty
incident.23 They testified that they saw accused-appellant at the scene of the crime and within a short span of time. Such possibility is further bolstered by the
and that he and his son stabbed the victim from behind. testimony of SPO4 Perez, a defense witness, when he testified that accused-
appellant came back at past 12 o'clock midnight or at around 1 o'clock in the
Accused-appellant likewise insists that there was only one assailant based on the morning of March 14, 1993.28Accused-appellant could thus have come from the
testimony of Dr. Fe L. Mercado that the two wounds inflicted upon the victim were dance hall before he went to Perez's house. We have time and again held that alibi
caused by only one instrument. He misconstrues, however, the testimony of Dr. will not be given credence when there was even the least chance for the accused to
Mercado. Dr. Mercado testified: be present at the crime scene.29
Q But anyway Doctora, in the first and second wounds, is it possible that the Third. As already stated, only accused-appellant Benny Acosta appealed. The other
assailant would use the same kind of weapon? accused, his son Renny Boy Acosta, did not.30 Hence, accused-appellant erred in
including accused Renny Boy Acosta as an appellant in this case. Unfortunately, the
A I could not determine. Office of the Solicitor General, possibly through oversight, perpetuated this error.

18
Rule 122, 11(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure states that an appeal taken by Granting that the victim gave the initial unlawful aggression, it had certainly ceased
one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except from the moment he fell to the ground. At that point, accused Renny Boy became
insofar as the judgment is favorable and applicable to the latter. We have likewise the aggressor.35 When the unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, the one making
held that an accused who not appeal from the judgment against him has no right to the defense has no right to kill or injure the former aggressor.36
seek relief since the judgment is final with respect to him. 31 Therefore, the finding
of the trial court that accused Renny Boy Acosta is guilty of murder and the penalty The claim of self-defense is further belied by the fact that the victim no longer
of an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, intended to stab Renny Boy Acosta after the first attempt. As Renny Boy admitted:
to twelve (12) years, five (5) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, imposed on him is now final and can no longer be reviewed. Q When Norton Baguio fell to the ground, was he still holding the ice pick?

In any event, even if a decision beneficial to accused Renny Boy Acosta is rendered, A Yes . . .
this will not benefit accused-appellant. What is more, the trial court correctly
Q When Norton Baguio fell down holding that twelve inches ice-pick, did he
rejected the plea of self-defense of accused Renny Boy Acosta. In a plea of self-
still try to thrust you?
defense, the burden shifts to the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence
the elements of the plea before he can avail himself of this justifying A No more.37
circumstance.32 He must thus prove that the following requisites are present: (1)
unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or More importantly, the physical evidence contradicts accused Renny Boy Acosta's
repel the unlawful aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of claim of self-defense. He alleged that he stabbed the victim twice, one in the
the person defending himself.33 stomach and in another part of the body which he could no longer remember. The
result of the postmortem examination, however, reveals that the victim had no
In this case, accused Renny Boy Acosta was the aggressor. On cross-examination, he wound in the stomach. Both wounds were located at the victim's back.
admitted that he stabbed the victim despite the fact the latter was already lying on
the ground. Thus, The contention that Renny Boy Acosta acted in defense of a stranger must likewise
be rejected. For this defense to be availed of, the following requisites must be
Q The thrust of the knife of Norton Baguio was the first thrust and you parried present: (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed
it, is that correct? to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression, and (3) the person defending the
stranger be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. 38 Renny Boy
A Yes, that was the first.
admitted that everytime he went to the dance, he always brought with him his
Q It was only the first thrust because you stabbed him right away, is that hunting knife, for the purpose of defending himself because the victim was a known
correct? trouble-maker in their place. He thus betrayed his animosity toward the victim. He
said:
A Yes.
Q And this Norton Baguio who is your classmate, you have known him very
Q Now, at the time when you said you stabbed Norton Baguio, Norton Baguio well?
already fell down?
A Yes.
A Yes.
Q You know him to be the toughest in your place?
Q And you stabbed him again?
A Yes, he is a tough guy.
34
A Yes.
Q And he used to be a troublesome in your place?

19
A Yes.

Q That's why everytime you go to the dance you bring hunting knife?

A Yes.39

Fourth. We affirm the trial court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of


treachery. Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms
in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might take.40 Norton Baguio was urinating with his back towards his assailants
when suddenly and unexpectedly he was twice stabbed. There is no doubt that the
victim in this case could not have repelled the attack or offered any defense of his
person.

The trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of
Norton Baguio in accordance with our recent rulings.41 We also agree with the trial
court that the heirs are not entitled to actual damages for expenses incurred during
the victim's wake and burial. To be entitled to such damages, it is necessary to
prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised
upon competent proof.42 In the case at bar, Adelia Patricio, the aunt of the victim,
who shouldered the expenses for wake and the burial of the victim, failed to submit
receipts to show the amount of such expenses.43 Hence, there being no receipts
presented as required by Art. 2199 of the Civil Code,44 this Court cannot grant the
heirs actual damages.

In accordance with our rulings, however, an award in the amount of P50,000.00 as


moral damages should be granted in this case to compensate them for injuries to
their feelings.45

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dumaguete City,
Negros Oriental, finding accused-appellant Benny Acosta guilty of murder and
imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that accused- appellant is ordered to pay to the heirs of Norton
Baguio the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, in addition to the amount of
P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity for the death of Norton
Baguio.

SO ORDERED.

20
G.R. No. 179708 April 16, 2009 While the deceased Acobs mother Marina was at the community center of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, Barangay Nagsurot, Burgos, Ilocos Norte on May 22, 1994, she heard a commotion
vs. at the yard of appellants. Soon after returning home, she told Acob that there was a
MARCELO ALETA1, FERDINAND ALETA, ROGELIO ALETA, MARLO2 ALETA, JOVITO quarrel at appellants compound.
ALETA, Appellants.
DECISION Against his mothers pleas, Acob repaired to appellants compound. Marina
CARPIO-MORALES, J.: followed and upon reaching appellants compound, she saw her nephew appellant
Rogelio striking her son Acob twice at the left cheek and at the back of his head
On appeal is the July 9, 2007 Court of Appeals Decision 3 affirming with modification with a piece of wood, causing Acob to fall on the ground. She thereafter saw
the October 25, 2001 Decision4of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilocos Norte, Rogelio striking Acobs father-in-law Duldulao twice on the face drawing his eyes to
Branch 19, with station at Bangui, convicting accused-appellant Marcelo and his pop up, and again on the head causing him to fall on the ground.
sons-co-appellants Ferdinand, Rogelio, Marlo and Jovito, all surnamed Aleta, of
Murder in two cases. Rogelio then ran towards the family house whereupon Marina heard gunshots.
Two Informations dated June 21, 1994 for the death of Celestino Duldulao Rogelios brothers-co-appellants Jovito, Marlo and Ferdinand and their father
(Duldulao) and Fernando Acob (Acob) were filed against accused-appellants: Marcelo at once began clubbing Acob and Duldulao with pieces of wood, mainly on
the face and head, as well as on different parts of their bodies.
The accusatory portion of Criminal Case No. 1102-19 reads:
Even while the victims were already lying prostrate on the ground, Marcelo, Jovito,
That on about May 22, 1994, at about 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, all the above- Marlo, and Ferdinand continued to hit them. And when Rogelio emerged from the
named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with house, he got another piece of wood and again clubbed the victims.
intent to kill and with abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously strike and club with the use of hard objects As found by Dr. Arturo G. Llabore, a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of
one Celestino Duldulao y Yadao inflicting upon the latter bodily injuries which Investigation-Regional Office, San Fernando, La Union who supervised the
caused his death as a consequence thereof. exhumation and autopsy of the bodies of Acob and Duldulao on June 3, 1994, the
two victims suffered multiple abrasions, lacerations, open wounds, contusions and
CONTRARY TO LAW.5 (Underscoring supplied) fractures on their face, head, scalp, arms, legs and thighs; that Acobs death was
due to "hemorrhage, intercranial, severe, secondary to traumatic injuries, head"
The accusatory portion of Criminal case No. 1103-19 reads: while Duldulaos was due to "hemorrhage, intercranial, severe, secondary to
traumatic injuries, head, multiple;" that both victims could have died within one (1)
That on about May 22, 1994, at about 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, all the above- hour after the infliction of the injuries; and that because of the severity and
named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with multiplicity of the injuries sustained, the same could not have been inflicted by only
intent to kill and with abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, one person.
unlawfully and feloniously strike and club with the use of hard objects
one FERNANDO ACOB inflicting upon the latter bodily injuries which caused his Upon the other hand, appellants Ferdinand and Marlo interposed self-defense and
death as a consequence thereof. (Underscoring supplied) defense of relative, respectively. Additionally, Marlo invoked voluntary surrender as
a mitigating circumstance. Marcelo, Rogelio and Jovito invoked alibi. Their version
CONTRARY TO LAW.6 of the incidents follows:
The victim Acob was the son of appellant Marcelos sister Marina Acob (Marina), At around 3:00 in the afternoon, while Ferdinand and Marlo were resting at their
while the other victim Duldulao was the victim Acobs father-in-law. compound, Acob arrived, uttering "Oki ni inayo" (Vulva of your mother") and drew
out a knife about six inches long. As Acob repeatedly uttered "Vulva of your
Culled from the evidence for the prosecution is its following version: mother, I will kill all of you!," he thrust the knife at Ferdinand was able to evade it.
Acob and Ferdinand slipped and fell on the ground, After some struggle, Acob
21
succeeded in stabbing Ferdinand on the thigh. As Acob was about to stab Ferdinand that that he did not resist but went peacefully with the police did not amount to
again, Marlo took a piece of wood and struck him three times on the face. voluntary surrender.
Ferdinand thereafter fell on the ground at which instant Marlo dropped the wood.
Appellants moved for a reconsideration of the trial courts decision, contending
Duldulao soon emerged and at about 10 meters away from Marlo, he uttered that there was no abuse of superior strength as the same was not consciously
"Vulva of your mother." As Duldulao looked as though he was going to strike Marlo adopted; and that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly
with a piece of wood, Marlo took a piece of wood and hit Duldulao twice on the left Marinas, are incredible or inconsistent. The motion for reconsideration having
cheekbone, causing him to fall on the ground. He went on to club Duldulao, as well been denied by Order7dated January 29, 2003, appellants appealed to the Court of
as Acob, to make sure that "they will no longer live." Marlo thereafter pocketed the Appeals, before which it raised the same issues as those in their motion for
knife used by Acob in stabbing Ferdinand. reconsideration before the trial court. Additionally, they questioned the penalty
imposed upon them.
Marlo never noticed where prosecution witnesses including Marina were during
the incidents. Nor did he notice where his father Marcelo and his brothers Rogelio By the challenged Decision dated July 9, 2007, the appellate court affirmed
and Jovito were. appellants conviction of murder but lowered the penalty imposed from death to
reclusion perpetua. And it modified the damages awarded from 250,000.00 to the
Ferdinand later went to the Batac General Hospital where Dr. Edgar Cabading heirs of each victim to the following amounts: 50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
treated his stab wound, to 1 centimeter deep, at his inner thigh. 50,000.00 as moral damages, and 25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The following morning, Marlo surrendered to the police. Marcelo and the other In modifying the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, the appellate court
appellants also surrendered days later. noted that in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the lesser
of the two indivisible penalties should be imposed.
Crediting the prosecution version, the trial court found appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Murder in both cases and sentenced each of them to suffer Hence, the present appeal, appellants maintaining that both the trial and the
the death penalty and to pay, jointly and severally, 250,000 to the heirs of appellate courts erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the
Duldulao, and another 250,000.00 to the heirs of Acob by way of civil damages. prosecution witnesses.

In arriving at its Decision, the trial court held that although what triggered the As in most criminal cases, the present appeal hinges primarily on the issue of
incidents was never explained, Acob and Duldulao died as a result of the attacks on credibility of witness and of testimony. As held in a number of cases, the trial court
them, qualified by abuse of superior strength and cruelty. is best equipped to make the assessment on said issue and, therefore, its factual
findings are generally not disturbed on appeal, unless: (1) the testimony is found to
In brushing aside Marlos claim of self-defense and Ferdinands defense of relative, be clearly arbitrary or unfounded; (2) some substantial fact or circumstance that
the trial court held that, assuming arguendo that there was unlawful aggression on could materially affect the disposition of the case was overlooked, misunderstood,
the part of the victims, the same ceased when the victims were already on the or misinterpreted; or (3) the trial judge gravely abused his or her discretion. 8
ground after Marlo hit them; and that force beyond what was necessary to repel
the aggression was employed when the victims were repeatedly clubbed. From a considered review of the records of the cases, the Court finds that none of
the above-stated exceptions is present to warrant a reversal of the factual findings
The trial court also brushed aside Marcelo, Jovito and Rogelios alibi that they of the trial and appellate courts.
were inside their house attending to a sick relative during the incidents, given their
silence and failure to deny the imputations against them, their alibi having been As held in a catena of cases and correctly applied by both lower courts, Marinas
invoked not by them but by Ferdinand and Marlo on their behalf. positive identification of allappellants as the assailants and her accounts of what
transpired during the incidents, which were corroborated on all material points by
Also brushing aside Marlos claim of voluntary surrender, the trial court noted that prosecution witnesses Loreta Duldulao (Loreta) and Willie Duldulao (Willie), as well
there was no conscious effort on his part to surrender or acknowledge his guilt; and as the findings of the medico-legal officer, carry greater weight than appellants
22
claims of self-defense, defense of relative and alibi. More particularly, that Marinas aggression, there would be nothing to prevent or repel. For unlawful aggression to
narration was so detailed all the more acquires greater weight and credibility be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or
against all defenses, especially because it jibed with the autopsy findings.9 imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.
(Emphasis supplied)
Respecting the defenses questioning of Loretas testimony that Willie had told her
that Duldulao was already dead, but was later to claim that on reaching the scene Assuming arguendo that Acob was indeed the aggressor, the aggression ceased the
of the crime, Duldulao was still alive, lying on the ground and being clubbed by moment he was disarmed and already lying on the ground after being struck by
appellants, the same deserves scant consideration. Far from being inconsistent, the Marlo. Even if Marlos account that Duldulao approached with a piece of wood
same is in sync with the other witnesses claim and Marlos own admission that above his head, the same, albeit intimidating, cannot be said to reek of imminent
appellants continued to club the two victims even as they lay motionless and and actual danger. When Marlo then continued to club Acob while in a prone
helpless on the ground. position, and struck Duldulao after he had fallen, self-defense and defense of
relative no longer avail.13
At any rate, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor
and insignificant details, such as whether Duldulao was still alive or not, cannot It is settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful aggression on
destroy Loretas testimony. Minor inconsistencies in fact even guarantee the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist; and when unlawful aggression ceases,
truthfulness and candor.10 the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor;
otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed. Retaliation is not the
A witness testimony deserves full faith and credit where there exists no evidence same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured
to show any dubious reason or improper motive why he should testify falsely party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the
against the accused, or why he should implicate the accused in a serious aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured by the accused.
offense.11 That the prosecution witnesses are all related by blood to appellants (Emphasis supplied)
should a fortiori be credited, absent a showing that they had motive to falsely
accuse appellants. Besides, the self-defense claimed to have been employed by Marlo cannot be said
to be reasonable.
As to the claims of self-defense, defense of relative, and alibi relied upon by
appellants, the lower courts finding the same unsubstantiated is well taken. People The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be commensurate to
v. Caabay12 instructs: the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be
rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.The nature or
Case law has it that like alibi, self-defense or defense of relatives are inherently quality of the weapon; the physical condition, the character, the size and other
weak defenses which, as experience has shown, can easily be fabricated. If the circumstances of the aggressor as well as those of the person who invokes self-
accused admits the killing, the burden of evidence, as distinguished from burden of defense; and the place and the occasion of the assault also define the
proof, is shifted on him to prove with clear and convincing evidence the essential reasonableness of the means used in self-defense.14 (Emphasis supplied)
elements of the justifying circumstance of self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means Thus, even if Ferdinands and Marlos accounts of what transpired were true,
employed by the accused to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack Marlos repeated clubbing of the already unarmed and helpless victims inside their
of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused defending himself. Defense of a own compound is clearly unreasonable. Consider the following admission of Marlo
relative requires the following essential elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the during his direct examination:
part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused
to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression of the victim; and (c) in case of Q.: And what happened to him when you were able to strike him?
provocation given by the person being attacked, the one evading the attack,
defense had no part therein. For the accused to be entitled to exoneration based A: He fell down, sir.
on self-defense or defense of relatives, complete or incomplete, it is essential that
Q.: And when he fell down, what did you do next?
there be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, for if there is no unlawful
23
A: I again clubbed him, sir. circumstance in the present cases. In any event, in view of the enactment of
Republic Act No. 9346 or "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Q.: And after clubbing him for the second time, what did you do next? Philippines on June 24, 2006, the imposition of the death penalty could not have
been maintained. So too is the lowering of the civil indemnity for the heirs of
A: I clubbed them alternately, sir. Fernando and Duldulao.
Q.: Why did you club them alternately? WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July
9, 2007 is, in light of the foregoing discussion, AFFIRMED.
A.: Because they might still live and will again attacked (sic) us, sir.
SO ORDERED.
Q.: Whom did you club alternately?

A.: Fernando Acob and Celestino Duldulao, your honor. (Emphasis supplied)

Marlo did not thus intend to merely repel the alleged attack. He wanted to be sure
that the two victims would not survive.

That Ferdinand sustained a to 1 centimeter deep stab wound in the thigh does
not necessarily prove that he acted in self-defense or that Marlo acted in defense
of a relative.15 Parenthetically, the knife, allegedly used by Acob which Marlo claims
to have taken, was not even presented in evidence.

As for the alibi of Marcelo, Rogelio and Jovito, for it to prosper, it must be shown
that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at
the approximate time of its commission.16 That they were in Marcelos house
attending to a relative who was allegedly having difficulty breathing, did not render
it impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crimes, the house being a
mere 13.5 meters away,17 more or less. Besides, it is impossible that they could not
have noticed the commotion that preceded and attended the incidents.

It bears noting that appellants enjoyed superiority in number (five) over the two
victims, clearly showing abuse of superior strength and that the force used by them
was out of proportion to the means of defense available to the
victims.181avvphi1.zw+

More. Contrary to the contention of appellants, conspiracy was present during the
attack. When two or more persons aim their acts towards the accomplishment of
the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently
independent, were in fact connected and cooperative indicating closeness of
personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, conspiracy may be inferred.
And where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all. 19

The appellate courts reduction of the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua in its
July 9, 2007 decision is in order, there being no mitigating nor aggravating
24
C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946 On September 13, 1942, while Avelina was feeding a dog under her house, Amado
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, approached her and spoke to her of his love, which she flatly refused, and he
vs. thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and touched her breasts, on account
NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE, defendants. of which Avelina, resolute and quick-tempered girl, slapped Amado, gave him fist
AVELINA JAURIGUE, appellant. blows and kicked him. She kept the matter to herself, until the following morning
when she informed her mother about it. Since then, she armed herself with a long
Nicolas Jaurigue and Avelina Jaurigue were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance fan knife, whenever she went out, evidently for self-protection.
of Tayabas, for the crime of murder, of which Nicolas Jaurigue was acquitted, but
defendant Avelina Jaurigue was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to an On September 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed up the house of
indeterminate penalty ranging from seven years, four months and one day defendant and appellant, and surreptitiously entered the room where she was
of prision mayor to thirteen years, nine months and eleven days of reclusion sleeping. He felt her forehead, evidently with the intention of abusing her. She
temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of immediately screamed for help, which awakened her parents and brought them to
the deceased, Amando Capina, in the sum of P2,000, and to pay one-half of the her side. Amado came out from where he had hidden under a bed in Avelina's room
costs. She was also credited with one-half of the period of preventive imprisonment and kissed the hand of Nicolas Jaurigue, her father, asking for forgiveness; and
suffered by her. when Avelina's mother made an attempt to beat Amado, her husband prevented
From said judgment of conviction, defendant Avelina Jaurigue appealed to the her from doing so, stating that Amado probably did not realize what he was doing.
Court of Appeals for Southern Luzon, and in her brief filed therein on June 10, 1944, Nicolas Jaurigue sent for the barrio lieutenant, Casimiro Lozada, and for Amado's
claimed parents, the following morning. Amado's parents came to the house of Nicolas
Jaurigue and apologized for the misconduct of their son; and as Nicolas Jaurigue
(1) That the lower court erred in not holding that said appellant had acted in the was then angry, he told them to end the conversation, as he might not be able to
legitimate defense of her honor and that she should be completely absolved of all control himself.
criminal responsibility;
In the morning of September 20, 1942, Avelina received information that Amado
(2) That the lower court erred in not finding in her favor the additional mitigating had been falsely boasting in the neighborhood of having taken liberties with her
circumstances that (a) she did not have the intention to commit so grave a wrong person and that she had even asked him to elope with her and that if he should not
as that actually committed, and that (b) she voluntarily surrendered to the agents marry her, she would take poison; and that Avelina again received information of
of the authorities; and Amado's bragging at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that same day.

(3) That the trial court erred in holding that the commission of the alleged offense At about 8 o'clock in the evening of the same day, September 20, 1942, Nicolas
was attended by the aggravating circumstance of having been committed in a Jaurigue went to the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists of which he was the
sacred place. treasurer, in their barrio, just across the provincial road from his house, to attend
religious services, and sat on the front bench facing the altar with the other officials
The evidence adduced by the parties, at the trial in the court below, has sufficiently of the organization and the barrio lieutenant, Casimiro Lozada. Inside the chapel it
established the following facts: was quite bright as there were electric lights.
That both the defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue and the deceased Amado Defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel shortly after the
Capina lived in the barrio of Sta. Isabel, City of San Pablo, Province of Laguna; that arrival of her father, also for the purpose of attending religious services, and sat on
for sometime prior to the stabbing of the deceased by defendant and appellant, in the bench next to the last one nearest the door. Amado Capina was seated on the
the evening of September 20, 1942, the former had been courting the latter in vain, other side of the chapel. Upon observing the presence of Avelina Jaurigue, Amado
and that on one occasion, about one month before that fatal night, Amado Capina Capina went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat by her right side,
snatched a handkerchief belonging to her, bearing her nickname "Aveling," while it and, without saying a word, Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his
was being washed by her cousin, Josefa Tapay. hand on the upper part of her right thigh. On observing this highly improper and
offensive conduct of Amado Capina, Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal
25
dignity and honor, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife marked Exhibit B, In the language of Viada, aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate
which she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of punishing Amado's defense of our own person, we have the right to property acquired by us, and the
offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she quickly grabbed the right to honor which is not the least prized of our patrimony (1 Viada, Codigo Penal,
knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the 5th ed., pp. 172, 173).
neck, inflicting upon him a wound about 4 1/2 inches deep, which was necessarily
mortal. Nicolas Jaurigue, who was seated on one of the front benches, saw Amado The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an unlawful aggression sufficient to put
bleeding and staggering towards the altar, and upon seeing his daughter still her in a state of legitimate defense, inasmuch as a woman's honor cannot but be
holding the bloody knife, he approached her and asked: "Why did you do that," and esteemed as a right as precious, if not more, than her very existence; and it is
answering him Avelina said: "Father, I could not endure anymore." Amado Capina evident that a woman who, thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender, should
died from the wound a few minutes later. Barrio lieutenant Casimiro Lozada, who be afforded exemption from criminal liability, since such killing cannot be
was also in the same chapel, approached Avelina and asked her why she did that, considered a crime from the moment it became the only means left for her to
and Avelina surrendered herself, saying: "Kayo na po ang bahala sa aquin," protect her honor from so great an outrage (1 Viada, Codigo Penal, 5th ed., p. 301;
meaning: "I hope you will take care of me," or more correctly, "I place myself at People vs. Luague and Alcansare, 62 Phil., 504). .
your disposal." Fearing that Amado's relatives might retaliate, barrio lieutenant
Lozada advised Nicolas Jaurigue and herein defendant and appellant to go home As long as there is actual danger of being raped, a woman is justified in killing her
immediately, to close their doors and windows and not to admit anybody into the aggressor, in the defense of her honor. Thus, where the deceased grabbed the
house, unless accompanied by him. That father and daughter went home and defendant in a dark night at about 9 o'clock, in an isolated barrio trail, holding her
locked themselves up, following instructions of the barrio lieutenant, and waited firmly from behind, without warning and without revealing his identity, and, in the
for the arrival of the municipal authorities; and when three policemen arrived in struggle that followed, touched her private parts, and that she was unable to free
their house, at about 10 o'clock that night, and questioned them about the herself by means of her strength alone, she was considered justified in making use
incident, defendant and appellant immediately surrendered the knife marked as of a pocket knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor, and
Exhibit B, and informed said policemen briefly of what had actually happened in the which ended in his death, since she had no other means of defending herself, and
chapel and of the previous acts and conduct of the deceased, as already stated consequently exempt from all criminal liability (People vs. De la Cruz, 16 Phil., 344).
above, and went with said policemen to the police headquarters, where her written
And a woman, in defense of her honor, was perfectly justified in inflicting wounds
statements were taken, and which were presented as a part of the evidence for the
on her assailant with a bolo which she happened to be carrying at the time, even
prosecution.
though her cry for assistance might have been heard by people nearby, when the
The high conception of womanhood that our people possess, however humble they deceased tried to assault her in a dark and isolated place, while she was going from
may be, is universal. It has been entertained and has existed in all civilized her house to a certain tienda, for the purpose of making purchases (United States
communities. vs. Santa Ana and Ramos, 22 Phil., 249).

A beautiful woman is said to be a jewel; a good woman, a treasure; and that a In the case, however, in which a sleeping woman was awakened at night by
virtuous woman represents the only true nobility. And they are the future wives someone touching her arm, and, believing that some person was attempting to
and mothers of the land. Such are the reasons why, in the defense of their honor, abuse her, she asked who the intruder was and receiving no reply, attacked and
when brutally attacked, women are permitted to make use of all reasonable means killed the said person with a pocket knife, it was held that, notwithstanding the
available within their reach, under the circumstances. Criminologists and courts of woman's belief in the supposed attempt, it was not sufficient provocation or
justice have entertained and upheld this view. aggression to justify her completely in using deadly weapon. Although she actually
believed it to be the beginning of an attempt against her, she was not completely
On the other hand, it is the duty of every man to protect and show loyalty to warranted in making such a deadly assault, as the injured person, who turned out
womanhood, as in the days of chivalry. There is a country where women freely go to be her own brother-in-law returning home with his wife, did not do any other act
out unescorted and, like the beautiful roses in their public gardens, they always which could be considered as an attempt against her honor (United States vs.
receive the protection of all. That country is Switzerland. Apego, 23 Phil., 391)..

26
In the instant case, if defendant and appellant had killed Amado Capina, when the murder in her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal night. Avelina is not a
latter climbed up her house late at night on September 15, 1942, and criminal by nature. She happened to kill under the greatest provocation. She is a
surreptitiously entered her bedroom, undoubtedly for the purpose of raping her, as God-fearing young woman, typical of our country girls, who still possess the
indicated by his previous acts and conduct, instead of merely shouting for help, she consolation of religious hope in a world where so many others have hopelessly lost
could have been perfectly justified in killing him, as shown by the authorities cited the faith of their elders and now drifting away they know not where.
above..
The questions raised in the second and third assignments of error appear,
According to the facts established by the evidence and found by the learned trial therefore, to be well taken; and so is the first assignment of error to a certain
court in this case, when the deceased sat by the side of defendant and appellant on degree.
the same bench, near the door of the barrio chapel and placed his hand on the
upper portion of her right thigh, without her consent, the said chapel was lighted In the mind of the court, there is not the least doubt that, in stabbing to death the
with electric lights, and there were already several people, about ten of them, deceased Amado Capina, in the manner and form and under the circumstances
inside the chapel, including her own father and the barrio lieutenant and other above indicated, the defendant and appellant committed the crime of homicide,
dignitaries of the organization; and under the circumstances, there was and there with no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at least three mitigating
could be no possibility of her being raped. And when she gave Amado Capina a circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in her favor; and, in
thrust at the base of the left side of his neck, inflicting upon him a mortal wound 4 accordance with the provisions of article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, she is
1/2 inches deep, causing his death a few moments later, the means employed by entitled to a reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon
her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and under the facts and her. And considering the circumstances of the instant case, the defendant and
circumstances of the case, she cannot be legally declared completely exempt from appellant should be accorded the most liberal consideration possible under the law
criminal liability.. (United States vs. Apego, 23 Phil., 391; United States vs. Rivera, 41 Phil., 472;
People vs. Mercado, 43 Phil., 950)..
But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily and
unconditionally surrendered to the barrio lieutenant in said chapel, admitting The law prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for the crime of homicide; and
having stabbed the deceased, immediately after the incident, and agreed to go to if it should be reduced by two degrees, the penalty to be imposed in the instant
her house shortly thereafter and to remain there subject to the order of the said case is that of prision correccional; and pursuant to the provisions of section 1 of
barrio lieutenant, an agent of the authorities (United States vs. Fortaleza, 12 Phil., Act No. 4103 of the Philippine Legislature, known as the Indeterminate Sentence
472); and the further fact that she had acted in the immediate vindication of a Law, herein defendant and appellant should be sentenced to an indeterminate
grave offense committed against her a few moments before, and upon such penalty ranging from arresto mayor in its medium degree, to prision correccional in
provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation, or temporary loss of reason its medium degree. Consequently, with the modification of judgment appealed
and self-control, should be considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor from, defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue is hereby sentenced to an
(People vs. Parana, 64 Phil., 331; People vs. Sakam, 61 Phil., 27; United States vs. indeterminate penalty ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor, as
Arribas, 1 Phil., 86). minimum, to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as
maximum, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of
Defendant and appellant further claims that she had not intended to kill the the deceased Amado Capina, in the sum of P2,000, and to suffer the corresponding
deceased but merely wanted to punish his offending hand with her knife, as shown subsidiary imprisonment, not to exceed 1/3 of the principal penalty, in case of
by the fact that she inflicted upon him only one single wound. And this is another insolvency, and to pay the costs. Defendant and appellant should also be given the
mitigating circumstance which should be considered in her favor (United States vs. benefit of 1/2 of her preventive imprisonment, and the knife marked Exhibit B
Brobst, 14 Phil., 310; United States vs. Diaz, 15 Phil., 123). ordered confiscated. So ordered..

The claim of the prosecution, sustained by the learned trial court, that the offense
was committed by the defendant and appellant, with the aggravating circumstance
that the killing was done in a place dedicated to religious worship, cannot be legally
sustained; as there is no evidence to show that the defendant and appellant had
27
G.R. No. L-4912 March 25, 1909 years and one day of reclusion temporal, to suffer the accessory penalties, to
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.
vs. From said judgment she has appealed.
EMILIA GUY-SAYCO, defendant-appellant.
The above-stated facts, which has been fully proven in this case, constitute the
Long before the commission of the crime herein prosecuted, Gelasio Galupitan, the crime of homicide defined and punished by article 404 of the Penal Code, for the
husband of the accused, entered into unlawful relations with the deceased Lorenza reason that in the violent death of Lorenza Estrada, occasioned by the infliction of
Estrada; all were residents of the town of Santa Cruz, the capital of the Province of several wounds, one of which was mortal, none of the circumstances were present
La Laguna. that qualify the crime of assassination and for a heavier penalty as imposed by the
previous article 403 of the code.
The accused, Emilia Guy-sayco, duly became aware of this relation. As her husband
had stayed away from the home for more than two weeks, remaining in the barrio The reality and certitude of the crime at bar can not be denied. It has been proven
of Dujat, distant about two or one-half hours' walk from the said town under the by the testimony of several witnesses, to wit, Roberto Villaran, Susana de Mesa, the
pretext that he was engaged in field work, on the 20th of March, 1907, at about 2 owners of the house, and Maria Ramos, all of whom witnessed the aggression; they
p. m., she decided to go to said barrio and join him. To this end she hired saw the deceased die as the result of five wounds inflicted upon her, one of which
a carromata, and after getting some clothes and other things necessary for herself was, of necessity mortal; it was also proven by the testimony of the surgeon who
and husband, started out with her infant child and a servant girl; but before examined the body, which was seen by the said witnesses and by others who went
reaching the barrio and the camarin where her husband ought to be, night came to the place of the occurrence.
on, and at about 7 o'clock she alighted and dismissed the vehicle after paying the
driver. They had yet to travel some distance, and for fear of being attacked she The accused pleaded not guilty, and in exculpation she alleged that, when Lorenza
disguised herself, using her husband's clothes and a hat given to her by her Estrada saw her and heard her remonstrate with her husband, she being then
companion, and dressed in this manner they continued on their way. On seeing her upstairs, Lorenza at once asked what had brought her there and manifested her
husband's horse tied in front of a house she suspected that he was inside; intention to attack her with a knife that she carried in her hand, whereupon the
thereupon she went to the steps leading to the house, which was a low one, and accused caught the deceased by the right hand, in which she held the weapon, and
then saw her husband sitting down with his back toward the steps. She immediately grappled with her, and in the struggle that ensued she managed to get
immediately entered the house and encountered her husband, the deceased, and hold of a penknife that she saw on the floor close by; she could not say whether she
the owners of the house taking supper together. Overcome and blinded by jealousy struck the deceased with it as she could not account for what followed.
she rushed at Lorenza Estrada, attacked her with a penknife that she carried, and
From this allegation of the accused, her counsel, with a view to asking that she be
inflicted five wounds upon her in consequence of which Lorenza fell to the ground
absolved, claims that in wounding the deceased she acted in proper self-defense.
covered with blood and died a few moments afterwards. The accused left the
house immediately after the aggression, and went to that of Modesto Ramos It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that as soon as the accused entered
where she changed her clothes. the house where she found her husband, without saying a word, she attacked the
deceased with a penknife and inflicted wounds that caused the immediate death of
From an examination of the body made on the following day by Dr. Gertrudo Reyes,
the latter. Such an allegation can not therefore be admitted, even though
it appeared that five wounds had been inflicted by a cutting and pointed weapon,
corroborated by the husband and the servant of the accused, inasmuch as the
one of which was on the left side of the breast and penetrated the left ventricle of
testimony of the latter is entirely contradicted and destroyed by the testimony of
the heart; this wound was of necessity mortal, the others being more or less
the witnesses for the prosecution, who were present at the aggression, and who
serious.
deny that the servant was present; it is not true that a penknife was found on the
A complaint was thereupon filed by the provincial fiscal on May 31, 1907, and the floor of the house; it is probable that the instrument with which the crime was
corresponding proceedings were instituted. The court below entered judgment on committed was carried by the accused when she went to said house; and even
June 29, 1908, sentencing the accused, Emilia Gut-Sayco, to the penalty of twelve though it were true that when the accused, Emilia, made her appearance, the
deceased Lorenza arose with a knife in her hand and in a threatening manner asked
28
the accused what had brought her there, such attitude, under the provisions of
article 8, No. 4 of the Penal Code, does not constitute that unlawful aggression,
which, among others, is the first indispensable requisite upon which exemption by
reason of self-defense may be sustained.

In order to consider that an unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is


necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively
determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made; a
mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify the commission
of an act which is punishable per se, and allow a claim of exemption from liability
on the ground that it was committed in self-defense. It has always been so
recognized in the decisions of the courts, in accordance with the provisions of the
Penal Code.

In the commission of the crime the presence of mitigating circumstance No. 7 of


article 9 of the code should be considered, without any aggravating circumstance to
neutralize its effects, for the reason that it has been proven that the accused, at the
time when the crime was committed, acted upon the impulse of passion and under
great jealous excitement at the sight of her husband taking supper in the company
of his mistress, after he had been absent from the conjugal dwelling for several
days.

As to the penalty of indemnity contained in the judgment appealed from and


impugned by the defense, article 17 of the code reads: "Every person criminally
liable for a crime or misdemeanor is also civilly liable," and according to the
established rule of the courts, in order that an accused person may be declared to
have incurred civil liability, it is sufficient that said liability shall proceed from, or be
the consequence of the criminal liability, and in addition thereto, article 122 of the
said code provides that the courts shall regulate the amount of indemnity for
damages under said civil liability, upon the same terms as prescribed for the
reparation of damage in article 121 of the code, and a finding on the matter should
be contained in the judgment.

For the reasons above set forth it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from
should be affirmed, as we do hereby affirm it in all its parts with costs against the
appellant. So ordered.

29
G.R. No. L-41674 March 30, 1935 Rivera had been stabbed under the right breast. The wounded man was taken to
the hospital, where he died the next afternoon.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. Francisco Ramos testified that it took him about two minutes to go back to the
REMEDIOS DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant. place where Francisco Rivera was. He found and that Enrique Bautista was with the
wounded man, and the defendant had started back towards the house of
Silvino Lopez de Jesus for appellant. mourning. He overtook her. She had a knife in her hand. When they reached the
Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee. house of Maria Inguit, Remedios de la Cruz stuck the knife into a table and said that
she stabbed Francisco Rivera because he embraced her.
VICKERS, J.:
The case for the prosecution rests upon the testimony of Enrique Bautista.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, According to him the defendant waited on the right side of the path near some
finding the defendant guilty of homicide and sentencing her to suffer not more guava trees and stabbed Francisco Rivera with a knife in her right hand when he
than fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporaland not less arrived in front of her; that the injured man cried "Aruy, Dios mio", while the
than eight years and one day of prision mayor, to indemnify the heirs of the defendant turned around and returned to the house of Maria Inguit, saying "Icao ay
deceased Francisco Rivera in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs. malaon na" (hacia tiempo ya). He further testified that the defendant stabbed the
deceased before either of them had said anything; that the distance between him
Appellant's attorney makes the following assignments of error:
and the deceased was about one foot; that he did not see any of the companions of
I. El Juzgado a quo, erro al dar absoluto credito a las pruebas de la acusacion, las the defendant after they reached the path and had to walk one behind the other.
que son insuficientes para apoyar una declaracion de conviccion.
The defendant on the other hand testified that after they had passed a fork in the
II. El Juzgado a quo erro al declarar que los celos fueron el motivo que impulso a la trail and reached a narrow part a man suddenly threw his arms around her from
acusada al agredir al occiso Francisco Rivera. behind, caught hold of her breasts and kissed her, and seized her in her private
parts; that she tried to free herself, but he held her and tried to throw her down;
III. El Juzgado a quo al declarar increible el testimonio de la acusada en esta causa. that when she felt weak and could do nothing more against the strength of the
man, she got a knife from her pocket, opened it, and stabbed him in defense of her
IV. Y el Juzgado a quo erro al no absolver a la acusada. honor. She further testified that the man who attacked her did not say anything;
that she asked him who he was but he did not answer; that when she was assaulted
It appears from the evidence that on the evening of February 18, 1934, Francisco she cried for help, saying "Madre mia; Dios mio"; that when she was seized, she
Ramos and his wife, Brigida Vistada; his sister, Baltazara Ramos; and a woman was about two brazas behind her nearest companion; that when she was face to
named Consuelo or Natividad Santoyo called at the house of the defendant and face with her assailant during the struggle she could scarcely recognize his face in
asked her to go with them to a wake in honor of one Sion, who had died in the the darkness and could not be sure that it was Francisco Rivera.
house of Maria Inguit. About nine o'clock the defendant and her friends started
home. They were followed about five minutes later, according to Enrique Bautista, Her testimony as to what occurred is as follows:
by the deceased Francisco Rivera, who had been playing cards in the house where
the wake was held. He was accompanied by Enrique Bautista. Rivera and Bautista P. Y que paso siendo usted la ultima de entre sus compaeros? R. Despues de
overtook defendant's party. When they reached a narrow part of the path, Rivera pasar nosotros en una bifurcacion de los caminos cuando llegabamos en una parte
went ahead of Bautista. At that time the members of the defendant's party were estrecha el occiso subitamente me abrazo por detras cogiendome los pechos y
walking in single file. Baltazara Ramos was in the lead and the defendant was the basandome.
hindmost. She was about two brazas from the person immediately ahead of her.
Francisco Ramos, the only one of defendant's companions that was called to testify, P. Y entonces que hizo usted cuando usted sintio ese abrazo y beso? R. todavia
heard someone cry out "Aruy, Dios mio". He went back and found that Francisco me agarro en mi parte genital y en eso yo trataba de desasirme de el; el me siguio

30
abrazando cogiendome de los pechos y basandome, y yo a mi vez seguia tratando improbable that she was reluctant to relate in the presence of all the people in the
de desasirme de el insistentemente. house of Maria Inguit the details of what had occurred.

P. Y que sucedio? R. Cuando yo trataba de desasirma de el, el me siguio We are convinced from a study of the record that the deceased did in fact grab hold
abrazando y yo a mi vez seguia tratandome de desassirme de el y el llego a of the defendant on the night in question, and whether he intended to rape her or
agarrarme en la parte genital y trato de lanzarme. not, taking into consideration that it was a dark night and that the deceased
grabbed her from behind without warning and without making himself known and
P. Y que hizo usted cuando le trataba de lanzarle a usted el occiso? R. Yo refused to say who he was, and in the struggle that followed touched her private
procuraba desasirme de el y cuando me quede debilitada y ya no podia hacer nada parts, and the fact that she was unable to free herself by means of her strength
contra la fuerza de el yo saque de mo bolsillo un cortaplumas. alone, we are of the opinion that she was justified in making use of the pocket-knife
in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor, since she had no
P. Y que hizo usted del cortaplumas? R. Lo abri porque cuando ya no podia other means of defending herself.
hacer nada y estaba y a debil yo hice lo que debia hacer en defensa de mi pudor, le
apuale. In the case of the United States vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil., 488), this court held that a
person is not criminally responsible when, by reason of a mistake of facts, he does
She further testified that she was engaged in selling fruit, and that the fanknife in an act for which he would be exempt if the facts were as he supposed them to be,
question was in a pocket of the overcoat she was wearing that day; that she went but would constitute murder if he had known the true state of facts at the time,
off with her friends without having an opportunity of changing her clothes. provided that the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad
faith.
We cannot believe the testimony of Enrique Bautista, because Francisco Ramos,
one of the witnesses for the prosecution, testified that it was a dark night, and The appellant claims to have cried for help, but so far as the record shows her cries
Bautista himself said that he could scarcely see anyone in the darkness ("Apenas se were not heard by any of her companions. Whether she did in fact cry for help, as
podia ver a alguien en esa obscuridad."); that he did not see any of the companions claimed by her, or failed to do so because of the suddenness with which the
of the defendant. deceased grabbed her and the fright which it naturally caused, taking into
consideration the circumstances of the case, we still think she is exempt from
It appears from the evidence that the deceased had been making love to the
criminal liability. In the case of the United States vs. Santa Ana and Ramos (22 Phil.,
defendant, and also to another girl named Felicisima Sincaban; but the finding of
249), this court held that a woman in defense of her honor is justified in inflicting
the trial judge that Francisco Rivera and the defendant were engaged, that she was
wounds or her assailant with a bolo which she happens to be carrying, even though
madly in love with him and was extremely jealous of Felicisima Sincaban is not
her cry for assistance might have been heard by people near by.
sustained by the evidence of record.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the
The appellant stabbed the deceased only once, although she retained possession of
appellant is acquitted, with the costs de oficio.
the knife, and undoubtedly could have inflicted other wounds on him if she had
desired. In other words she desisted as soon as he released her.

The evidence shows that an officer of the Constabulary went to see the injured man
about eleven o'clock that night in the hospital, but it does not appear that Rivera
told him anything about the circumstances under which he had been stabbed.

The appellant is an illiterate barrio girl, unable to write her name, and scarcely
eighteen years old. We do not believe her story is a fabrication. In this connection it
is to be noted that almost immediately after the incident in question took place,
the appellant said she stabbed Francisco Rivera because he embraced her. It is not

31
G.R. No. 182748 December 13, 2011 towards Arnel and tried to stab him with a gaff. Arnel was able to avoid the attack
ARNEL COLINARES, Petitioner, and hit Ananias with the same stone. Arnel then fled and hid in his sisters house.
vs. On September 4, 2000, he voluntarily surrendered at the Tigaon Municipal Police
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Station.
DECISION
ABAD, J.: Diomedes testified that he, Rufino, Jesus, and Ananias attended a pre-wedding
This case is about a) the need, when invoking self-defense, to prove all that it takes; party on the night of the incident. His three companions were all drunk. On his way
b) what distinguishes frustrated homicide from attempted homicide; and c) when home, Diomedes saw the three engaged in heated argument with Arnel.
an accused who appeals may still apply for probation on remand of the case to the
trial court. On July 1, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment, finding Arnel guilty beyond reasonable
The Facts and the Case doubt of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment from two
years and four months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six years and one
The public prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged the accused Arnel Colinares (Arnel) day of prision mayor, as maximum. Since the maximum probationable
with frustrated homicide before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, imprisonment under the law was only up to six years, Arnel did not qualify for
Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case T-2213.1 probation.

Complainant Rufino P. Buena (Rufino) testified that at around 7:00 in the evening Arnel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), invoking self-defense and,
on June 25, 2000, he and Jesus Paulite (Jesus) went out to buy cigarettes at a alternatively, seeking conviction for the lesser crime of attempted homicide with
nearby store. On their way, Jesus took a leak by the roadside with Rufino waiting the consequent reduction of the penalty imposed on him. The CA entirely affirmed
nearby. From nowhere, Arnel sneaked behind and struck Rufino twice on the head the RTC decision but deleted the award for lost income in the absence of evidence
with a huge stone, about 15 inches in diameter. Rufino fell unconscious as Jesus to support it.3 Not satisfied, Arnel comes to this Court on petition for review.
fled.
In the course of its deliberation on the case, the Court required Arnel and the
Ananias Jallores (Ananias) testified that he was walking home when he saw Rufino Solicitor General to submit their respective positions on whether or not, assuming
lying by the roadside. Ananias tried to help but someone struck him with something Arnel committed only the lesser crime of attempted homicide with its imposable
hard on the right temple, knocking him out. He later learned that Arnel had hit him. penalty of imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two
years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum, he could still apply for
Paciano Alano (Paciano) testified that he saw the whole incident since he happened probation upon remand of the case to the trial court.
to be smoking outside his house. He sought the help of a barangay tanod and they
brought Rufino to the hospital. Both complied with Arnel taking the position that he should be entitled to apply for
probation in case the Court metes out a new penalty on him that makes his offense
Dr. Albert Belleza issued a Medico-Legal Certificate2 showing that Rufino suffered probationable. The language and spirit of the probation law warrants such a stand.
two lacerated wounds on the forehead, along the hairline area. The doctor testified The Solicitor General, on the other hand, argues that under the Probation Law no
that these injuries were serious and potentially fatal but Rufino chose to go home application for probation can be entertained once the accused has perfected his
after initial treatment. appeal from the judgment of conviction.

The defense presented Arnel and Diomedes Paulite (Diomedes). Arnel claimed self- The Issues Presented
defense. He testified that he was on his way home that evening when he met
Rufino, Jesus, and Ananias who were all quite drunk. Arnel asked Rufino where he The case essentially presents three issues:
supposed the Mayor of Tigaon was but, rather than reply, Rufino pushed him,
causing his fall. Jesus and Ananias then boxed Arnel several times on the back. 1. Whether or not Arnel acted in self-defense when he struck Rufino on the head
Rufino tried to stab Arnel but missed. The latter picked up a stone and, defending with a stone;
himself, struck Rufino on the head with it. When Ananias saw this, he charged
32
2. Assuming he did not act in self-defense, whether or not Arnel is guilty of did and when and how he did it. Compared to Arnels testimony, the prosecutions
frustrated homicide; and version is more believable and consistent with reality, hence deserving credence.8

3. Given a finding that Arnel is entitled to conviction for a lower offense and a Two. But given that Arnel, the accused, was indeed the aggressor, would he be
reduced probationable penalty, whether or not he may still apply for probation on liable for frustrated homicide when the wounds he inflicted on Rufino, his victim,
remand of the case to the trial court. were not fatal and could not have resulted in death as in fact it did not?

The Courts Rulings The main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is the accuseds intent to
take his victims life. The prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to
One. Arnel claims that Rufino, Jesus, and Ananias attacked him first and that he exclude every possible doubt regarding homicidal intent. 9And the intent to kill is
merely acted in self-defense when he hit Rufino back with a stone. often inferred from, among other things, the means the offender used and the
nature, location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim. 10
When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of showing that he
was legally justified in killing the victim or inflicting injury to him. The accused must Here, Arnel struck Rufino on the head with a huge stone. The blow was so forceful
establish the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. When that it knocked Rufino out. Considering the great size of his weapon, the impact it
successful, the otherwise felonious deed would be excused, mainly predicated on produced, and the location of the wounds that Arnel inflicted on his victim, the
the lack of criminal intent of the accused. 4 Court is convinced that he intended to kill him.

In homicide, whether consummated, frustrated, or attempted, self-defense The Court is inclined, however, to hold Arnel guilty only of attempted, not
requires (1) that the person whom the offender killed or injured committed frustrated, homicide. In Palaganas v. People, 11 we ruled that when the accused
unlawful aggression; (2) that the offender employed means that is reasonably intended to kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly weapon and the wounds
necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that the person he inflicted, but the victim did not die because of timely medical assistance, the
defending himself did not act with sufficient provocation.5 crime is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. If the victims wounds are not
fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide.
If the victim did not commit unlawful aggression against the accused, the latter has
nothing to prevent or repel and the other two requisites of self-defense would have Thus, the prosecution must establish with certainty the nature, extent, depth, and
no basis for being appreciated. Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, severity of the victims wounds. While Dr. Belleza testified that "head injuries are
sudden, and unexpected attack or an imminent danger of such attack. A mere always very serious,"12 he could not categorically say that Rufinos wounds in this
threatening or intimidating attitude is not enough. The victim must attack the case were "fatal." Thus:
accused with actual physical force or with a weapon.6
Q: Doctor, all the injuries in the head are fatal?
Here, the lower courts found that Arnel failed to prove the element of unlawful
aggression. He alone testified that Jesus and Ananias rained fist blows on him and A: No, all traumatic injuries are potentially treated.
that Rufino and Ananias tried to stab him. No one corroborated Arnels testimony
that it was Rufino who started it. Arnels only other witness, Diomedes, merely Q: But in the case of the victim when you treated him the wounds actually are not
testified that he saw those involved having a heated argument in the middle of the fatal on that very day?
street. Arnel did not submit any medical certificate to prove his point that he
suffered injuries in the hands of Rufino and his companions. 7 A: I could not say, with the treatment we did, prevent from becoming fatal. But
on that case the patient preferred to go home at that time.
In contrast, the three witnessesJesus, Paciano, and Ananiastestified that Arnel
was the aggressor. Although their versions were mottled with inconsistencies, Q: The findings also indicated in the medical certificate only refers to the length of
these do not detract from their core story. The witnesses were one in what Arnel the wound not the depth of the wound?

A: When you say lacerated wound, the entire length of the layer of scalp.
33
Q: So you could not find out any abrasion? Three. Ordinarily, Arnel would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he
having appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated
A: It is different laceration and abrasion so once the skin is broken up the label of homicide.
the frontal lo[b]e, we always call it lacerated wound, but in that kind of wound,
we did not measure the depth.13 But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and
holds that the maximum of the penalty imposed on him should be lowered to
Indeed, Rufino had two lacerations on his forehead but there was no indication that imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four
his skull incurred fracture or that he bled internally as a result of the pounding of months of prision correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but
his head. The wounds were not so deep, they merely required suturing, and were fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case to the
estimated to heal in seven or eight days. Dr. Belleza further testified: RTC.

Q: So, in the medical certificate the wounds will not require surgery? Some in the Court disagrees. They contend that probation is a mere privilege
granted by the state only to qualified convicted offenders. Section 4 of the
A: Yes, Madam. probation law (PD 968) provides: "That no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the
Q: The injuries are slight?
judgment of conviction."15 Since Arnel appealed his conviction for frustrated
A: 7 to 8 days long, what we are looking is not much, we give antibiotics and homicide, he should be deemed permanently disqualified from applying for
antit[e]tanus the problem the contusion that occurred in the brain. probation.

xxxx But, firstly, while it is true that probation is a mere privilege, the point is not that
Arnel has the right to such privilege; he certainly does not have. What he has is the
Q: What medical intervention that you undertake? right to apply for that privilege. The Court finds that his maximum jail term should
only be 2 years and 4 months. If the Court allows him to apply for probation
A: We give antibiotics, Your Honor, antit[e]tanus and suturing the wounds. because of the lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide whether or
not to grant him the privilege of probation, taking into account the full
Q: For how many days did he stay in the hospital? circumstances of his case.
A: Head injury at least be observed within 24 hours, but some of them would Secondly, it is true that under the probation law the accused who appeals "from the
rather go home and then come back. judgment of conviction" is disqualified from availing himself of the benefits of
probation. But, as it happens, two judgments of conviction have been meted out to
Q: So the patient did not stay 24 hours in the hospital?
Arnel: one, a conviction for frustrated homicide by the regional trial court, now set
A: No, Your Honor. aside; and, two, a conviction for attempted homicide by the Supreme Court.

Q: Did he come back to you after 24 hours? If the Court chooses to go by the dissenting opinions hard position, it will apply the
probation law on Arnel based on the trial courts annulled judgment against him.
A: I am not sure when he came back for follow-up.14 He will not be entitled to probation because of the severe penalty that such
judgment imposed on him. More, the Supreme Courts judgment of conviction for a
Taken in its entirety, there is a dearth of medical evidence on record to support the lesser offense and a lighter penalty will also have to bend over to the trial courts
prosecutions claim that Rufino would have died without timely medical judgmenteven if this has been found in error. And, worse, Arnel will now also be
intervention. Thus, the Court finds Arnel liable only for attempted homicide and made to pay for the trial courts erroneous judgment with the forfeiture of his right
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. to apply for probation. Ang kabayo ang nagkasala, ang hagupit ay sa kalabaw (the
horse errs, the carabao gets the whip). Where is justice there?

34
The dissenting opinion also expresses apprehension that allowing Arnel to apply for right penalty of two years and four months maximum.lavvphil This would have
probation would dilute the ruling of this Court in Francisco v. Court of afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation.
Appeals16 that the probation law requires that an accused must not have appealed
his conviction before he can avail himself of probation. But there is a huge The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to probation
difference between Francisco and this case. through no fault of his. The underlying philosophy of probation is one of liberality
towards the accused. Such philosophy is not served by a harsh and stringent
In Francisco, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati found the accused interpretation of the statutory provisions.18 As Justice Vicente V. Mendoza said in
guilty of grave oral defamation and sentenced him to a prison term of one year and his dissent in Francisco, the Probation Law must not be regarded as a mere
one day to one year and eight months of prision correccional, a clearly privilege to be given to the accused only where it clearly appears he comes within
probationable penalty. Probation was his to ask! Still, he chose to appeal, seeking its letter; to do so would be to disregard the teaching in many cases that the
an acquittal, hence clearly waiving his right to apply for probation. When the Probation Law should be applied in favor of the accused not because it is a criminal
acquittal did not come, he wanted probation. The Court would not of course let law but to achieve its beneficent purpose.19
him. It served him right that he wanted to save his cake and eat it too. He certainly
could not have both appeal and probation. One of those who dissent from this decision points out that allowing Arnel to apply
for probation after he appealed from the trial courts judgment of conviction would
The Probation Law, said the Court in Francisco, requires that an accused must not not be consistent with the provision of Section 2 that the probation law should be
have appealed his conviction before he can avail himself of probation. This interpreted to "provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender."
requirement "outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the accusedto An accused like Arnel who appeals from a judgment convicting him, it is claimed,
wager on the result of his appealthat when his conviction is finally affirmed on shows no penitence.
appeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his sentence
inevitable, he now applies for probation as an escape hatch thus rendering This may be true if the trial court meted out to Arnel a correct judgment of
nugatory the appellate courts affirmance of his conviction."17 conviction. Here, however, it convicted Arnel of the wrong crime, frustrated
homicide, that carried a penalty in excess of 6 years. How can the Court expect him
Here, however, Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to feel penitent over a crime, which as the Court now finds, he did not commit? He
to apply for probation. He did not have a choice between appeal and probation. He only committed attempted homicide with its maximum penalty of 2 years and 4
was not in a position to say, "By taking this appeal, I choose not to apply for months.
probation." The stiff penalty that the trial court imposed on him denied him that
choice. Thus, a ruling that would allow Arnel to now seek probation under this Ironically, if the Court denies Arnel the right to apply for probation under the
Courts greatly diminished penalty will not dilute the sound ruling in Francisco. It reduced penalty, it would be sending him straight behind bars. It would be robbing
remains that those who will appeal from judgments of conviction, when they have him of the chance to instead undergo reformation as a penitent offender, defeating
the option to try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege. the very purpose of the probation law.

Besides, in appealing his case, Arnel raised the issue of correctness of the penalty At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC done what was right and imposed on
imposed on him. He claimed that the evidence at best warranted his conviction Arnel the correct penalty of two years and four months maximum, he would have
only for attempted, not frustrated, homicide, which crime called for a had the right to apply for probation. No one could say with certainty that he would
probationable penalty. In a way, therefore, Arnel sought from the beginning to have availed himself of the right had the RTC done right by him. The idea may not
bring down the penalty to the level where the law would allow him to apply for even have crossed his mind precisely since the penalty he got was not
probation. probationable.

In a real sense, the Courts finding that Arnel was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, The question in this case is ultimately one of fairness. Is it fair to deny Arnel the
but only of attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for the first time right to apply for probation when the new penalty that the Court imposes on him
imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the is, unlike the one erroneously imposed by the trial court, subject to probation?
start, it would have found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the
35
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition, MODIFIES the Decision
dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 29639, FINDS petitioner
Arnel Colinares GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of attempted homicide, and
SENTENCES him to suffer an indeterminate penalty from four months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as
maximum, and to pay Rufino P. Buena the amount of 20,000.00 as moral
damages, without prejudice to petitioner applying for probation within 15 days
from notice that the record of the case has been remanded for execution to the
Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case T-2213.

SO ORDERED.

36
G.R. No. 181204 November 28, 2011 Length - 1.5 cm.
Depth - 0.1 cm.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs. 4. Incised wound left forearm posterior aspect upper third
EDGAR CONCILLADO, Appellant. Length - 10.0 cm.
Depth - 2.5 cm.
DECISION
5. Incised wound 3.0 cm. below wound no. 4
DEL CASTILLO, J.: Length - 2.0 cm.
Depth - 0.3 cm.
When an accused admits the commission of the crime but claims the justifying
circumstance of self-defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. When the 6. Stab wound left knuckle between 4th and 5th Carpal bone.
accused miserably fails to discharge his burden, he does not deserve an acquittal. Length - 2.0 cm.
His conviction must be sustained, as in the instant case. Depth - 2.5 cm.

Factual Antecedents: 7. Incised wound right upper arm anterior aspect 3.0 cm. above elbow joint.
Length - 5.0 cm.
In the early moning of August 24, 2002, Diosdado Pido (Diosdado) was shot, Depth - 1.5 cm.
stabbed and hacked in Barangay Guinciaman, San Miguel, Leyte. Having sustained a
8. Incised wound right forearm postero lateral aspect 5.0 cm. below elbow joint
total of 26 wounds, he instantly succumbed to death. Blamed for his untimely
demise were Edgar Concillado (Edgar), Erlito Concillado (Erlito) and Dolores Length - 6.0 cm.
Concillado (Dolores). Thus, on November 5, 2002, an Information 1 was filed Depth - 0.1 cm.
charging them with murder. The accusatory portion thereof reads: 9. Stab wound right hand below thumb and index finger
That on or about the 24th day of August, 2002, in the Municipality of San Miguel, Length - 3.0 cm.
Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Depth - 3.5 cm.
the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one 10. Incised wound right chest anterior aspect at the level of the 4th rib
another, with deliberate intent, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then
Length - 9.0 cm.
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack, stab and shoot
one DIOSDADO PIDO with a homemade shotgun (surit) which the accused have Depth - 2.0 cm. hitting 4th rib.
provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon the latter the 11. Incised wound left side chest 3.0 cm. below wound no. 10
following wounds, to wit: Length - 6.5 cm.
Depth - 2.0 cm.
1. Incised wound right side face extending from mid portion earlobe Right to molar
bone. 12. Linear abrasion between wounds no. 10 and 11
Length - 11.0 cm. Length - 10.0 cm.
Depth - 2.5 cm. 13. Incised wound 1.0 cm. above left nipple
Fracturing molar bone, Right. Length - 3.0 cm.
2. Incised wound Left Shoulder joint Depth - 0.2 cm.
Length - 2.0 cm. 14. Incised wound 1 cm. below left nipple
Depth - 1.0 cm. Length - 1.5 cm.
3. Incised wound left upper arm, antero lateral aspect, 5.0 cm. below axilla Left. Depth - 10 cm.
37
15. Stab wound 1.5 cm. below left nipple, directed slightly upward and to the CONTRARY TO LAW.
center penetrating left ventricle of the heart. During their arraignment on January 6, 2003, all the accused pleaded "not guilty" to
Length - 0.2 cm. the charge.2 Pre-trial was thereafter set on January 9, 2003.3 After the pre-trial was
declared terminated,4 trial on the merits immediately followed.
Depth - 10 cm.
16. Stab wound abdomen left side, 2 cm. above navel portion of the small intestine Version of the Prosecution
15 cm. protruding from the wound.
Length - 10.0 cm. The prosecution first called to the witness stand Dr. Federico De Veyra, Jr. (Dr. De
Veyra), the Municipal Health Officer of San Miguel, Leyte. However, his testimony
17. Stab wound right upper abdomen, 12 cm. from anterior midline at the level of
was dispensed with5 after the defense admitted the authenticity and due
the last rib.
execution6 of the Necropsy Report7 he issued.
Length - 5.0 cm. about 15 cm. of small intestine protruding from the wound.
18. Stab wound, 5 cm. lateral to wound no. 16 Next to be called to the witness stand was Lorenzo Vias (Lorenzo). 8 He recalled
that on August 23, 2002, he and the victim, Diosdado, went to Barangay
Length - 3.0 cm. directed toward the center of the body.
Malaguinabut, San Miguel, Leyte, to attend the fiesta. 9 At around 12:30 a.m. of
19. Gunshot wound left upper thigh, antero lateral aspect, four in number spaced in August 24, 2002, they went home to Barangay Guinciaman 10 aboard a motorcycle.
one (1) to 2 cm. apart (Oval shape wound) average diameter is 1 cm. Upon reaching Barangay Guinciaman, they parted ways. Shortly thereafter and
20. Oval shape wound, 5 cm. lateral to wound no. 18 (4 pellet recovered near from a distance of about 10 meters, Lorenzo saw Edgar shoot Diosdado using a
wound no. 19 (exit wound) "surit-surit" (homemade gun).11 When Diosdado fell to the ground, Edgar and
21. Incised wound 3 cm. lateral to wound no. 19 Dolores approached the victim and simultaneously stabbed him using small bolos
about 10 inches in length.12 Thereafter, Erlito joined the fray and delivered hacking
Length - 2.5 cm.
blows on the victim using a long bolo.13 Edgar, Dolores and Erlito then left the crime
Depth - 1.0 cm. scene, crossed the nearby river and proceeded to the rice fields. 14
22. Incised wound left knee anterior lateral aspect Length - 3.5 cm.
After the malefactors have left, Lorenzo reported the incident to the barangay
Depth - 0.5 cm.
tanod15 who in turn informed the authorities.
23. Incised wound near left scapula
Length - 3.0 cm. Balbina Aureo (Balbina), the sister of the deceased, 16 testified that in connection
Depth - 0.5 cm. with the death of Diosdado, they incurred expenses amounting to 30,000.00 more
or less.17 Thereafter, the prosecution formally offered its documentary exhibit and
24. Stab wound, four (4) cm. below wound no. 23.
rested its case.18
Length - 1.8 cm.
Depth - 2.5 cm. hitting scapular bone. Version of the Defense
25. Stab wound thru and thru skin deep 5 cm. below wound no. 24 entrance wound The defense likewise presented Dr. De Veyra as its first witness. 19 He testified that
Length - 1.5 cm. on August 24, 2002 at around 3:30 a.m., Edgar was brought to his house for
exit wound 1 cm. below. treatment.20 Edgar suffered three superficial21 incised wounds at his right chest,
right collarbone and left forearm22 which could have been caused by a sharp bladed
Length - 1.0 cm.
instrument.23
26. Incised wound, five (5) cm. below no. 25
Length - 0.5 cm. The defense next presented PO2 Jessiefesto Alvaro Quintana (PO2 Quintana), who
Depth - 0.1 cm. testified that on August 24, 2002, he was the desk officer of the PNP [Philippine
National Police] Station in San Miguel, Leyte. 24 As part of his duties, he recorded
which wounds caused the death of said Diosdado Pido.
38
Entry No. 1461 dated August 24, 2002 found in page 208 of the police blotter to the fight.47 Diosdado immediately delivered a hacking blow using a bolo about 25
effect that at about 1:10 a.m. of same day, Edgar voluntarily surrendered to the inches long48 hitting Edgar on his right chest.49 Edgar ran towards the door of their
police station and admitted having killed Diosdado with the use of a long bolo. 25 He house, took his "surit" and fired at Diosdado50 who continued on hacking
also wrote that Edgar suffered stab wounds on his right breast and left arm. 26 PO2 him.51 Edgar was able to parry the blows coming from Diosdado as he was able to
Quintana, however, could no longer recall the police officer to whom Edgar grab a long bolo52 immediately after he fired his gun.53 Edgar and Diosdado kept on
surrendered,27 or whether there were police officers who went to the crime exchanging blows until they were already outside the formers gate. 54 After some
scene.28 time, Diosdado turned his back on Edgar.55 Thinking that Diosdado was already
fleeing, Edgar went back to their house 56 and eventually surrendered himself at the
The defense also presented SPO1 Leopoldo Lesiguez (SPO1 Lesiguez). He testified police station.57 He was thereafter treated by Dr. De Veyra for his wounds. 58
that on August 23, 2002 at around 11:00 p.m. he was on duty at the PNP Station,
San Miguel, Leyte when Edgar arrived and informed him that he would voluntarily Edgar claimed that during his fight with Diosdado, his wife, Dolores, was sleeping
surrender.29 Without bothering to ask Edgar who his victim was, he endorsed Edgar soundly upstairs. His brother, Erlito, on the other hand, was at Barangay
to PO2 Quintana.30 When asked to clarify as to exactly when Edgar surrendered, he Malaguinabut attending a fiesta.59
stated that the voluntary surrender happened on August 23, 2002 and not on
August 24, 2002.31 The defense likewise placed Dolores on the witness stand. She testified that on
August 23, 2002, she and Edgar went to the house of Imelda after eating
On the other hand, PO Ramil Amaga (PO Amaga), testified that he is a member of supper.60 While at the house of Imelda, she lay down as she was indisposed while
the PNP assigned in San Miguel, Leyte, particularly at the operative services. 32 On Imelda and Edgar consumed gallon of tuba. At about 11:00 p.m., they went home
August 23, 2002, he was tasked to maintain peace and order in Barangay where she immediately retired upstairs while Edgar remained in their sala. 61 At
Malaguinabut together with PO1 Calixto Viador.33 At around 12 midnight, they around 1:00 a.m. of August 24, 2002, Edgar roused her from her sleep and told her
proceeded to Barangay Guinciaman upon receipt of a report about a killing to leave their house immediately.62
incident.34 Upon reaching the crime scene, he saw the lifeless body of Diosdado
lying on the ground.35 He also saw Lorenzo who informed him that he was already Dolores then heard people outside their house shouting that Diosdado had been
at his house when he heard a gunshot and Diosdado asking for help. However, he killed and mentioning the name of Edgar.63 Afraid of being lynched, Dolores went
(Lorenzo) arrived late because his house is located about 30 meters more or less out of their house through the back door and hid among the grasses and
from the crime scene.36 bamboos.64 She only left her hiding place when the voices subsided. 65 She sought
refuge at the house of their neighbor66 where she was told that her husband had
Manuel Solomon, the Barangay Captain of Guinciaman, 37 testified that on August already surrendered to the police authorities.67 Dolores denied any participation in
24, 2002 at about 1:00 a.m., he was roused from his sleep 38 by several persons who the crime.68
informed him about the killing of Diosdado. He immediately proceeded to the
crime scene which is 200 meters more or less from his house. 39 Upon reaching the Erlito, the last defense witness, testified that in the early evening of August 23,
crime scene, he noticed several onlookers40 including Lorenzo. After about 40 2002, he was at the house of a certain Junior Cajudo (Junior) in Barangay
minutes, the investigating officers arrived. 41 Malaguinabut attending the festivities69 together with Lorenzo.70 After their supper,
they drank tuba until the following morning. 71 Thereafter, he decided to go home
Edgar, one of the accused and appellant herein, next took the witness stand. He to Barangay Guinciaman but before reaching said barangay he was warned by
admitted that he was the one who inflicted all the 26 wounds on the Adela Bagi (Adela) not to proceed because he might be killed in retaliation for the
victim,42 although he claimed that he was only acting in self-defense. He narrated killing of Diosdado by Edgar.72 Erlito thus stayed at the house of Adela until night
that shortly after 11:00 p.m. of August 23, 2002,43 he and his wife Dolores arrived at time of August 24, 2002. The following morning, he went to the house of a certain
their house in Barangay Guinciaman after partaking in a drinking spree at the house Ching Veloso to hide.73
of Imelda Obio (Imelda) which is located about 40 meters from their house. 44 His
wife immediately went upstairs to sleep as she has fever. 45 Edgar remained Erlito labeled Lorenzo as a liar. He claimed that Lorenzo could not have witnessed
downstairs and sat on the concrete floor near the door.46 After a while, he urinated the crime as he (Lorenzo) was in Barangay Malaguinabut likewise joining in the
near their fence whereupon Diosdado suddenly appeared and challenged him to a drinking spree at the house of Junior.74
39
On January 20, 2004, the defense rested its case.75 SO ORDERED.89

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) On August 3, 2004, we resolved to accept the appeal of Edgar, Erlito and
Dolores.90 On even date, we required both parties to file their respective
On March 12, 2004,76 the RTC of Carigara, Leyte, Branch 13, rendered its briefs.91 However, conformably with our ruling in People v. Mateo,92 we resolved to
Decision77 finding all three accused guilty as charged.78 The trial court held that refer the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for appropriate action and disposition. 93
there was conspiracy among the accused because they waited in ambush for the
victim; and after shooting him, simultaneously delivered hacking and stabbing Ruling of the Court of Appeals
blows on him.79 The RTC also found that the plan to kill Diosdado was not hatched
on the spur of a moment thus it appreciated the qualifying aggravating On May 31, 2007, the CA rendered its Decision94 acquitting Erlito and Dolores of the
circumstance of evident premeditation.80 crime charged and finding Edgar guilty only of homicide.95

The trial court also held that Lorenzo could not have been mistaken in identifying The CA found the testimony of Lorenzo, the prosecution eyewitness, to be
the accused because he is familiar with the three accused as they were his dubious.96 According to the CA, it was unnatural for Lorenzo to just stare and not
neighbors.81 No improper motive was likewise imputed on Lorenzo 82whose bother to hide or take cover while the frenzied attack on Diosdado was ongoing. 97 It
testimony was corroborated by the medical certificate issued by Dr. De Veyra. 83 is likewise unbelievable for Lorenzo to have seen Dolores stab Diosdado on the left
breast as the latter was already lying face down when Dolores supposedly
The court a quo ruled that the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by arrived.98 Considering the foregoing, the CA gave credence to the testimony of PO
the victim belied the allegation of Edgar that he merely acted in self-defense84 and Amaga that Lorenzo heard the cries for help of Diosdado but arrived at the crime
that the victim was the unlawful aggressor.85 Neither did it lend credence to Edgars scene only after the crime had been consummated.99 As such, it acquitted Erlito
asseveration that he was hacked while urinating near the fence by the and Dolores there being no evidence that would establish their culpability. 100
victim.1wphi1
As regards Edgar who admitted the killing, the CA was not convinced of his self-
Dolores and Erlitos defense of alibi was debunked by the RTC. 86 It held defense theory.101 However, for lack of evidence to establish the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, the CA convicted Edgar only
that Erlito failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the of the crime of homicide.102 In imposing the proper penalty, the CA appreciated the
crime scene at the time of its commission considering that the six-kilometer mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
distance between Barangay Malaguinabut and Barangay Guinciaman could be
easily traversed in less than 10 minutes using a motorcycle. 87 At any rate, alibi could The dispositve portion of the CA Decision reads:
not prevail against the positive identification by Lorenzo.88
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 8, 2004, is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: EDGAR CONCILLADO is found guilty of HOMICIDE only and is hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and eight (8) months
WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code of prision mayor minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
as amended and further amended by R.A. 7659, (The Death Penalty Law), the Court months of reclusion temporal minimum, as maximum. Accused-appellant EDGAR
found the three accused, EDGAR CONCILLADO, DOLORES CONCILLADO and ERLITO CONCILLADO is ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of 50,000.00
CONCILLADO, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, charged as civil indemnity ex delicto. The awards of moral and exemplary damages are
under the information and each is sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DELETED.
DEATH, and to pay civil indemnity, ex-delicto, to the heirs of Diosdado Pido, the
sum of Seventy Five Thousand (75,000.00) Pesos and pay moral and exemplary Accused-appellant DOLORES CONCILLADO and ERLITO CONCILLADO are ACQUITTED
damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (50,000.00) Pesos and of the crime charged and ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement, unless
they are being detained for some other legal cause.
Pay the Cost.

40
SO ORDERED.103 For the justifying circumstance of self-defense to be properly appreciated, the
following elements must concur: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity
Edgar filed a Notice of Appeal.104 On March 3, 2008, we accepted the appeal and of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation
notified the parties to file their supplemental briefs. 105 The defense opted not to file on the part of the person defending himself. 113
a supplemental brief and manifested that it is adopting instead all the arguments
raised in the Appellants Brief. 106 The Office of the Solicitor General similarly "[T]he most important among all the elements is x x x unlawful aggression.
manifested that it is adopting its Appellees Brief as its Supplemental Brief. 107 Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully
pleaded, whether complete or incomplete."114 "There can be no self-defense unless
Parties Arguments there was unlawful aggression from the person injured or killed by the accused; for
otherwise, there is nothing to prevent or repel."115 "Unlawful aggression is an
The defense insists that Edgar acted in self-defense, hence should be acquitted.108 It actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a
avers that Edgar was only protecting himself from the incessant thrusts coming person."116
from Diosdado.109 On the other hand, the prosecution asserts that Edgars plea of
self-defense has not been established by clear and convincing evidence. 110 Finally, We subscribe to the findings of both the trial court and the CA that there is no
the prosecution maintains that Edgar should be convicted of murder and not of unlawful aggression on the part of Diosdado. According to the trial court, "[t]he
homicide.111 distance of the accused from the fence while he was urinating was about 1
meters, while the victim was outside and in-between them was a bamboo fence
Our Ruling about four feet high. With the height of the fence and his distance from the fence,
there is an impossibility of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim."117 It also
The appeal lacks merit.
concluded that the victim could not have entered the yard of the accused. The dead
The burden of proof is shifted to Edgar when he admitted the killing but claimed body of Diosdado was found lying on the road about eight meters from the house
to have acted in self-defense. of Edgar. However, no traces of blood could be found in the yard of the accused. 118

"Well-settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the We also agree with the ruling of the CA that the disparity of the injuries sustained
belies all pretensions of self-defense. Diosdado suffered a total of 26 incised, stab
burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. and bullet wounds. On the other hand, Edgar suffered only three superficial
However, once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but wounds.119 "As has been repeatedly ruled, the nature, number and location of the
raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. wounds sustained by the victim disprove a plea of self-defense."120 Moreover,
He cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution for even if it is during his cross-examination, Edgar admitted that he continued to inflict injuries on
weak, it cannot be doubted especially after he himself has admitted the killing. This Diosdado notwithstanding the fact that he was already lying lifeless on the
is because a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order."112 ground.121

In this case, Edgar admits responsibility for the death of Diosdado but desires to There being no unlawful aggression to speak of, Edgars theory of self-
avoid criminal responsibility therefor by claiming that he was only acting in self-
preservation and that it was in fact Diosdado who was the unlawful aggressor. It is defense has no leg to stand on. Having miserably failed to discharge his burden of
therefore incumbent upon Edgar to prove that he deserves an acquittal. proof, we therefore find Edgar criminally responsible for the death of Diosdado.

Both the trial court and the CA properly disregarded Edgar's claim of self-defense. The crime committed

We examined the records and found no cogent reason to depart from the findings We agree with the CA that Edgar could be held liable only for the crime of homicide
of both the trial court and the CA which disregarded Edgars theory of self-defense. and not murder. "For alevosia to qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown
that: (1) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as
to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and
41
(2) the said means, method and manner of execution were deliberately adopted. is more vulnerable and prone to error compared to written reports. Besides, it is
Moreover, for treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the highly improbable for Edgar to surrender even before committing the crime.
witness right at the inception of the attack."122 Undoubtedly, therefore, Edgars surrender on August 24, 2002 was voluntary.

On the other hand, evident premeditation "requires proof showing: (1) the time Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion
when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) the overt act manifestly temporal.125 Conformably with Article 64(2) of the Revised Penal Code, when there
indicating that he clung to his determination; (3) a sufficient lapse of time between is only a mitigating circumstance present, the penalty shall be imposed in its
the decision and the execution, allowing the accused to reflect upon the minimum period. In the instant case, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
consequences of his act. Such proof must be based on external acts that are not surrender126 is present.
merely suspicious but also notorious, manifest, evident and indicative of deliberate
planning. The evidence must show [that] the decision to kill prior to the moment of Hence, to compute the imposable penalty, the maximum penalty shall be taken
its execution was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent from reclusion temporal in its minimum period which ranges from twelve (12) years
attempts. Absent such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences are and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. On the other hand, to
insufficient. Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof get the minimum of the imposable penalty, we apply the Indeterminate Sentence
as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it Law which instructs that the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next
was carried out. The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected." 123 lower to that prescribed for the offense. The penalty next lower to reclusion
temporal is prision mayor, the range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to
In the instant case, the testimony of Lorenzo having been properly discredited by twelve (12) years.127 Accordingly, we impose upon Edgar the prison term of six (6)
the CA, the prosecution has no evidence to show how the attack was commenced years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years of
or how it was perpetrated. There is also no evidence to show that Edgar decided to reclusion temporal, as maximum.
kill Diosdado and has clung to such determination even after a sufficient time has
elapsed. Consequently, there is no basis for us to appreciate the qualifying The Damages
aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
As regards the damages, we find the award of 50,000.00 as civil indemnity
The Penalty pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.128 However, the CA erred in deleting the
award of moral damages. "In cases of murder and homicide, the award of moral
In order to determine the appropriate penalty, we must first assess whether the damages is mandatory, without need of allegation and proof other than the death
courts below properly appreciated Edgar's voluntary surrender. "For the mitigating of the victim."129 Hence, Edgar should also pay the heirs of
circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be
spontaneous and in a manner that shows that the accused made an unconditional Diosdado the amount of 50,000.00 as moral damages. 130
surrender to the authorities, either based on recognition of guilt or from the desire
to save the authorities from the trouble and expenses that would be involved in the We note that the CA did not award actual damages. Although Balbina, the sister of
accuseds search and capture. Moreover, it is imperative that the accused was not Diosdado, testified that they incurred 30,000.00 more or less in connection with
actually arrested, the surrender is before a person in authority or an agent of a the funeral of Diosdado, they nonetheless failed to present receipts to substantiate
person in authority, and the surrender was voluntary." 124 said claim. "Settled is the rule that only duly receipted expenses can be the basis of
actual damages."131 Nonetheless, "[u]nder Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate
In the instant case, records show that Edgars surrender was spontaneous. He damages may be recovered as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim
presented himself to the police authorities even before the latter had knowledge of suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved." 132Thus, we
the killing. He also unconditionally admitted before them that he killed Diosdado. award the amount of 25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages
to the heirs of Diosdado. "In addition, and in conformity with current policy, we
The entry in the police blotter to the effect that Edgar presented himself at the also impose on all the monetary awards for damages an interest at the legal rate of
police station on August 24, 2002 deserves more weight than the testimony of 6% from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid."1331wphi1
SPO1 Lesiguez that Edgar surrendered on August 23, 2002. A persons recollection
42
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that
appellant Edgar Concillado is sentenced to suffer the prison term of six (6) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay the heirs of Diosdado Pido the amounts
of 50,000.00 as moral damages and 25,000.00 as temperate damages, all in
addition to the 50,000.00 civil indemnity which is retained, as well as interest on
all these damages assessed at the legal rate of 6% from date of finality of this
Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

43
G.R. Nos. L-39270 and L-39271 October 30, 1934 death was actually and truly caused by an accident in the fight when both the
accused and the deceased, struggling for the possession of the weapon, fell to the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, ground because the deceased stumbled against a fallen coconut tree, and it was in
vs. his fall that the injury was accidentally caused.
FELIX GAYRAMA, defendant-appellant.
II. Granting for the sake of argument that the wound in question had been the
Ruperto Kapunan for appellant. effect of an intentional aggression on the part of the accused, nevertheless, the
Office of the Solicitor General Hilado for appellee. court a quo erred in not considering that said act of the accused had been
committed in legitimate self-defense as he was at that moment the subject of an
DIAZ, J.: unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased and several other persons who
pursued and threw stones at him.
Felix Gayrama was charged in the Court of First Instance of Leyte in two cases with
murder with assault upon agents of persons in authority, the victim in the former III. The court, therefore, erred in not considering that all the requisites of a
case being policeman Placido Delloro (criminal case No. 8922), and in the latter legitimate self-defense were present in this case.
chief of police Fernando Corpin (criminal case No. 8923); with frustrated murder
with assault upon an agent of persons in authority in another case (criminal case IV. The court a quo erred in declaring that the deceased Fernando Corpin was
No. 8924), and furthermore with serious physical injuries in another (criminal case acting as an agent of persons in authority during the incident in question.
No. 8925).
V. Even granting that the deceased was chief of police and that he was acting as
The accused was convicted in all said cases but the trial court declared him guilty such, that is, he was trying to arrest the accused at the time of the incident in
only of homicide with assault upon agents of persons in authority in each of the question, nevertheless, the court a quo erred in not declaring that said deceased
former two cases and of slight physical injuries in the latter two. In the latter cases exceeded his authority in unjustifiably assaulting the accused who was then fleeing
he was sentenced to pay a fine of P300 and to indemnity Eugenio Nierras in the not certainly to avoid arrest but from the mobs that were pursuing and throwing
sum of P192.70 (case No. 8924), and to two months of arresto mayor (case No. stones at him with danger to his life, one of which mobs was led by the deceased
8925), with costs; and in each of the former cases he was sentenced to sixteen himself.
years of reclusion temporal with the corresponding accessories of the law, and to
indemnify the heirs of each of his victims in the sum of P1,000 also with costs. He VI. The court a quo also erred in declaring the accused-appellant guilty of homicide
did not appeal from the sentence imposing upon him the penalties of fine with assault upon agents of persons in authority and in imposing upon him the
and arresto mayor but appealed from that sentencing him to sixteen years penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, without furthermore taking
of reclusion temporal with the accessories of the law plus indemnities in the sum of into consideration the presence of several mitigating circumstances, to wit: (1)
P1,000. unlawful aggression; (2) lack of provocation on the part of the defendant; (3)
passion and obfuscation; and (4) voluntary surrender to the authorities, which
In support of his appeal Felix Gayrama assigns in his brief six alleged errors as circumstances, by their number and weight, produce the effect of reducing the
committed by the lower court in its decision and sentence in case No. 8923 (G.R. penalty by two periods in the general scale.
No. 39271): and five alleged errors as committed by it in its decision and sentence
in case No. 8922 (G.R. No. 39270), which are stated as follows: (Criminal case No. 8922; G.R. No. 39270)

(Criminal case No. 8923; G.R. No. 39271) The court a quo erred:

The court a quo erred: I. In not having taken into consideration the presence in this case of all the
exempting circumstances in favor of the accused-appellant who acted in legitimate
I. In having declared that the accused appellant voluntarily and intentionally self-defense.
assaulted the deceased Fernando Corpin, although the wound that resulted in his

44
II. In having declared that the deceased policeman Delloro aimed his revolver at the the application of electors Eustaquio Dincong and Remigio Aragon of the Tonelete
accused-appellant "perhaps for the purpose of snatching the bolo from the latter". faction, who were at that time accompanied by Francisco Gayrama, to be permitted
to cast their votes with the aid of another person by reason of defective eyesight,
III. If the deceased, as municipal policeman, was acting as such on said occasion, the said inspectors engaged in a discussion, which at times became heated, with the
court, however erred: (a) in assuming that the accused-appellant, in assaulting said other inspector Jose Napalit of the Tonelete faction, in the presence not only of
deceased, knew said circumstance and (b) in not declaring that the deceased acted said Francisco Gayrama and those of his faction but also of those of the Nierras
with abuse of his authority. faction, due to the insistence of the former (Napalit) that said applications of the
two electors in question should be favorably considered. President Eugenio Nierras,
IV. The court, therefore, erred in declaring the accused guilty of the complex crime who was informed of the incident, upon going to said precinct sometime before
of homicide with assault upon an agent of persons in authority. noon on that day, gave orders to policeman Clodoaldo Abrigo, his brother, to arrest
Francisco Gayrama if the latter should again go up into the precinct (the precinct to
V. The court a quo also erred in imposing upon the accused the maximum period
all appearances was in the upper story of a building), after Gayrama had been
of reclusion temporal, without furthermore taking into consideration the presence
ordered to go down with his followers.lawphi1.net
of the very qualified mitigating circumstances, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression; (2)
lack of provocation on the part of the accused; (3) passion and obfuscation; and (4) While Francisco Gayrama and his followers were going home without having
voluntary surrender to the authorities, which produce the effect of reducing the attained the purpose which brought them to the election precinct, he told Amado
penalty by two periods in the general scale. Aragon, almost shouting because he was sufficiently far from the latter to inform
their candidate Francisco Tonelete of the result and incidents of their petition to
The evidence for the prosecution and that for the defense agree on the following
the board of election inspectors. Inspector Higino Corpin, who was not far away
facts, to wit: that the chief of police Fernando Corpin received a necessarily mortal
because he was also on his way home with the other inspector Simeon Rosales,
wound on his left side level with the stomach, which wound was caused by a bolo,
thinking himself alluded to, challenged Francisco Gayrama to a fight forthwith
piercing the abdominal cavity from side to side; that said wound resulted in
hitting the latter on the arm with his fist, and both grappled. They were separated
Fernando Corpin's death two hours later; that policeman Delloro, in turn, received
by Amado Aragon who was near by, telling them not to fight because both of them
twelve wounds in various parts of his body, five of which were, as Fernando
as the others, were from Biliran. This intervention of Amado Aragon must not have
Corpin's wound, necessarily fatal, and resulted in said Delloro's death at the scene
been pleasing to Simeon Rosales for, approaching Aragon, he seized the latter by
of the crime. The appellant, in open court, admitted having been the author of the
the body and threw him to the ground. This incident having made things worse,
aggression and of the death of said two deceased, but defended himself, as he now
Higino Corpin ordered policeman Clodoaldo, who was near by, to arrest Francisco
defends himself in this instance, by alleging that he had merely acted in legitimate
Gayrama who, in order to avoid being arrested, ran away followed by Amado
self-defense.
Aragon in the direction of the house of one Juan de Paz. They were pursued by
The two crimes with which the appellant was charged were the climax of some Higino Corpin, Simeon Rosales, policeman Abrigo and followers who were informed
encounters which took place at noon on, April 18, 1931, in the municipality of of the incident while the latter were in the house of president Nierras. Manuel
Biliran, Leyte, between Francisco Gayrama, a brother of said appellant, and Amado Nierras, son of said president, upon overtaking Francisco Gayrama, intercepting
Aragon, on one side, and Higino Corpin, Simeon Rosales, Manuel Nierras and him in order to block his way, caught Francisco Gayrama by the neck and one of the
others, on the other. On said date the registration of voters in the electoral census legs and lifting him in the air flung him to the ground thereby causing a dislocation
took place in the different election precints of said municipality. The electors of one arm. Amado Aragon, coming to Francisco Gayrama's defense, hit Manuel
therein were then divided into two factions: one in favor of the candidacy for Nierras on the back with his fist and, seeing that things were going from bad to
municipal president of the then incumbent Eugenio Nierras who ran for reelection worse, seized a stake to defend himself from the aggression of Nierra's followers.
and the other which, in turn, favored the candidacy of Francisco Tonelete who Amado Aragon and Francisco Gayrama, taking advantage of the desistance rather
aspired for the same office. than indecision, of the former from continuing to attack them, went on their way to
take refuge in Francisco Gayrama's house.
Inasmuch as the majority of the election inspectors of election precinct No. 2,
composed of Higino Corpin and Simeon Rosales of the Nierras faction, had rejected
45
While the foregoing incident was taking place, the appellant whose turn was to stay Before the acts with which the appellant is charged were committed, there were in
in the house of his other brother, Prudencio Gayrama, the Tonelete faction's the house of president Nierras about 50 or 60 of the latter's followers and some of
candidate for vice-president, in order to prepare food for the electors of their them, upon seeing the appellant and thinking that he was trying to join his brother
faction, observed from the movement of various persons from one place to another Francisco Gayrama and Amado Aragon in order to resist policeman Clodoaldo
that something extraordinary was taking place, and was furthermore informed by Abrigo and his companions, such as Manuel Nierras and his followers, who had
Crispin Barili that his brother Francisco Gayrama and Amado Aragon had been received orders to arrest said Francisco Gayrama and Amado Aragon, threw stones
assaulted by many people. The appellant, upon going down from his brother at said appellant forcing him to retreat and take another way until president
Prudencio's house, carried a bolo on his belt as he had just slaughtered a pig, and Eugenio Nierras saw him and maltreated him as above stated.
he left the house in order make sure and see with his own eyes what was really
happening to his brother Francisco. He arrived in front of Petronilo Jadulco's house From the foregoing proven facts, the following questions arise: (1) Does the
and as soon as he was seen by president Nierras, who had already been informed appellant's act of killing chief of police Fernando Corpin constitute homicide with
of the incident between the latter's followers on one side, and Francisco Gayrama assault upon an agent of persons in authority? (2) Does the appellant's act of
and his followers on the other, said president Nierras approached him and asked depriving policeman Placido Delloro of his life also constitute homicide with assault
him whether he had also come there to challenge the president and followers to a upon an agent of persons in authority?
fight. Without waiting for a reply, the president slapped him on the left cheek.
Almost simultaneously Esteban Nierras, the president's brother, kicked the As to the first question, the evidence shows that Fernando Corpin was wearing a
appellant, felling him. When said appellant noted that the president was about to felt hat with a cord usually worn by chiefs of police as part of their uniform, a faded
repeat the aggression by slapping him, he unsheated his bolo and slashed the khaki shirt and also khaki pants. There is no question but that this uniform, which is
president on the posterior part of the left arm inflicting thereon a wound 4 inches undoubtedly a policeman's, was sufficient to call the appellant's attention to the
long, 3 inches wide and 1 inch deep. Said president, upon feeling himself wounded, fact that he was dealing with a peace officer. Furthermore, the appellant himself
cried for help saying that Felix Gayrama had wounded him, at the same time knew Fernando Corpin to be the municipal chief of police. He assaulted said officer
ordering his men and chief of police Fernando Corpin to arrest Gayrama. The while the latter was performing his duties as such inasmuch as said chief of police
appellant, after wounding the president, run away, pursued by chief of police had been ordered by president Eugenio Nierras, his immediate superior, to arrest
Fernando Corpin, Manuel Nierras, Godofredo Corpin, Clodoaldo Abrigo and others the appellant for having wounded said president with his bolo, and furthermore
who in their pursuit threw stones at said appellant, hitting and injuring him on because, as said chief of police had witnessed the aggression, it was inevitable for
various parts of the body. The stone which Fernando Corpin threw at the appellant him to make the arrest. The reason for this is that it is the duty of peace officers to
hit the latter on the right cheek, causing him to stagger for the moment, for which arrest violators of the law not only when they are provided with the corresponding
reason said Fernando Corpin, the deceased chief of police, succeeded in overtaking warrant of arrest, but also when they are not provided with said warrant if the
him and holding him by both hands. Thus held, the appellant struggled to free violation is committed in their own presence; and this duty extends even to cases
himself from Fernando Corpin who, unfortunately stumbled against something a the purpose of which is merely to prevent a crime about to be consummated. (U.
fallen tree according to some witnesses and fell, exposing his left side. The S. vs. Bertucio, 1 Phil., 47; U. S. vs. Resaba, 1 Phil., 311; U. S. vs. Vallejo, 11 Phil.,
appellant, taking advantage of this opportunity, plunged the bolo which he carried 193; U. S. vs. Santos, 36 Phil., 853.) This same power was authorized by rule 28 of
into Corpin's body, piercing his abdomen. The appellant immediately fled and in the Provisional Law for the application of the provisions of the old Penal Code,
doing so came upon the deceased policeman Placido Delloro who, as he shouted to which was in force at the time the two complex crimes under consideration were
the appellant: Justice! Justice! suggesting to the latter to surrender, discharged his committed; and from the provisions of article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, it may
revolver at the appellant missing him. The appellant, seeing said policeman and, be reasonably inferred that peace officers until now have such authority,
striking the latter on the wrist with his bolo, made him drop his firearm. The notwithstanding the fact that the former law has been repealed by article 367 of
policeman attempted to pick up his firearm from the ground but the appellant said Revised Penal Code.
shoved him and after he had fallen slashed him several times, with his bolo,
It cannot be said that there was a previous unlawful aggression on the part of the
furthermore plunging it into the policeman's body until the latter died. The autopsy
deceased Fernando Corpin because the fact that he threw stones at the appellant
later disclosed that one of the wounds received by the deceased Delloro was
which the latter was running away was not entirely unjustified, taking into
inflicted on his right wrist.
46
consideration the fact that the purpose of the deceased in so doing was to succeed was evident that the case involved the detention of a man who had committed two
in capturing and arresting the appellant who was escaping because he had crimes, one on the person of municipal president Eugenio Nierras and the other on
assaulted municipal president Eugenio Nierras. It is not strange that the deceased that of chief of police Fernando Corpin, which crimes were both serious in nature.
employed said means to detain the appellant because he was then entirely Furthermore, said deceased reasonably believed that the appellant, being armed,
unarmed. If he had been armed with a revolver and had used it against the might injure more persons, taking into consideration the strained relations
appellant, his act under those circumstances would have been fully justified. between the followers of the two rival political factions in Biliran.

There is not the least doubt but that there was no reasonable necessity of the Now then, inasmuch as this court is already convinced that the appellant
means employed by the appellant to repel Fernando Corpin's aggression because committed the two complex crimes of homicide with assault with which he was
the evidence shows that there was not even any aggression from which he had to charged, the next question to be decided is that which concerns the penalty or
defend himself and that the fact of holding a person by the hands in order to place penalties which should be imposed upon him.
him under arrest is not the aggression referred to in the law constituting one of the
elements of legitimate self-defense. At any rate there was absolutely no necessity Article 89 of the old Penal Code, which was still in force when the two crimes in
for the appellant to use his bolo because the deceased was unarmed, it being question were committed, provides that the penalty for the more serious crime,
evident, therefore, that there was no proportion between the aggression even the same to be applied in its maximum period, should be imposed upon a person
granting by way of a hypothesis that such an aggression existed and the means found guilty of a complex crime. Homicide is punished in said Code with reclusion
employed to repel it, particularly because said deceased had fallen to the ground. temporal to its full extent, and that of assault upon an agent of persons in authority
with prision correccional in its medium period toprision mayor in its minimum
As regards the deceased Placido Delloro, the evidence shows that he was on guard period and a fine of not less than 625 and not more than 6,250 pesetas. This seems
in the municipal building when he was informed of the aggression committed by to justify the imposition upon the appellant, in both cases, of the penalty
the appellant on municipal president Eugenio Nierras and chief of police Fernando corresponding to homicide, in its maximum period, that is, from seventeen years,
Corpin. As soon as he had received the municipal president's order to capture said four months and one day to twenty years of reclusion temporal, which penalty is
appellant, he left his post in order to comply with said order and, before exactly the same as that prescribed in article 48, in connection with article 249, of
discharging his revolver at the appellant, he made himself known as a peace officer the Revised Penal Code.
by shouting to said appellant, Justice! Justice! for the purpose of suggesting to the
latter to surrender. Inasmuch as the appellant would not stop but instead Inasmuch as the mitigating circumstances of obfuscation, lack of instruction and
continued to run toward him, bolo in hand, said policeman prepared to fire another voluntary surrender to the authorities should be taken into consideration in favor
shot at the appellant and it was while he was in this position that the appellant of the accused on the ground that the evidence shows that he scarcely knows how
rushed at him to strike him on the wrist of his hand holding the revolver, forcing to write his name and that the voluntarily surrendered to the provincial fiscal of
him to drop said weapon. While the deceased Delloro was trying to pick up said Leyte on the day following the incidents under consideration, should his penalty be
revolver with his left hand, the appellant shoved him, felling him to the ground, and necessarily fixed at seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion
forthwith repeatedly struck him with his (appellant's) bolo until he died. temporal with the corresponding accessories and the indemnity provided in the
appealed judgment? Undoubtedly not, because it is a rule that when an act is
The record discloses , although it does not so state clearly, that the place where the attended by two or more mitigating circumstances with no aggravating
policeman dropped his revolver by reason of the bolo wound inflicted on his wrist, circumstance to change their value, the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
was quite a distance from where he was killed by said appellant, which fact leads us law should be imposed upon the accused in the period that the court may deem
to the conclusion that when said appellant repeatedly struck the deceased with his applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances. (Rule 5 of
bolo, all danger that might have come from said deceased had already ceased and article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, which is the same as rule 5 of article 81 of the
therefore there was no necessity of killing him. old Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2298.)

Under the circumstances when policeman Delloro suggested to the appellant to By virtue of said rule, the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused is the
surrender by shouting to him, Justice! Justice! he was justified in firing the shot one next lower to reclusion temporal in its maximum period which is no other
from which the appellant claims to have defended himself with his bolo because it than reclusion temporal in its medium period. This is evident, taking into
47
consideration rule 5 of article 61 of said Revised Penal Code, which is literally rule 5 In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods,
of article 75 of the old Penal Code. Said rule reads as follows: the courts shall apply he rules contained in the foregoing article, dividing into three
equal portions the time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period
When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not specially of each of the three portions.
provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall
impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated There can be no doubt but that the penalty prescribed by law for the crimes
felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories. committed by the appellant is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, on the
ground that it is so expressly provided in said article 89 of the old Penal Code or
The four rules to which rule 5 refers read as follows: article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case of People vs. Co Pao (58 Phil., 545),
this court, notwithstanding what has been stated in the case of United States vs.
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty Fuentes (4 Phil., 404), held that the penalty next lower to prision mayor in its
next lower in degree shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in maximum period is prision mayor in its medium period. Without repeating the
the scale prescribed in article 70 of this Code. reasons stated therein and proceeding by analogy, taking into consideration said
rule 5 of article 75 of the old Penal Code (article 61, rule 5, of the Revised Penal
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible
Code), this court is of the opinion that the penalty which should be imposed upon
penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent,
the appellant in each of the two cases under consideration, is reclusion temporal in
the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of
its medium period, or fourteen years, eight months and one day, which is the
the penalties prescribed in the above mentioned scale.
minimum of said penalty, due to the weight and number of the attendant
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible mitigating circumstances in his favor, which are lack of instruction, passion or
penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next obfuscation and voluntary surrender to the authorities; and in order to grant him
lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the the benefits of Act No. 4103, the minimum of said penalty of fourteen years, eight
proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in months and one day would have to be fixed at twelve years and one day because,
said scale. following the rule already stated, the penalty next lower to reclusion temporal in its
medium period is correctly reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods,
corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall Wherefore, with the modification that the appellant is sentenced in each of said
be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of cases Nos. 8922 and 8923 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte (G.R. Nos. 39270
the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if and 39271, respectively), to the indeterminate penalty of from twelve years and
possible; otherwise, from the penalty immediately following in the above one day to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, and to
mentioned scale. indemnify the heirs of the deceased Fernando Corpin and Placido Delloro in the
sum of P1,000, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects, with costs
It will be seen from said four rules that the appellant's case does not fall directly against the appellant. So ordered.
under any of them. It follows, therefore, that the question should be determined by
proceeding by analogy to rule 4, in conformity with said rule 5. And it should be so
because the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period is divisible into
three periods, the duration of the maximum period thereof being from nineteen
years, one month and eleven days to twenty years; that of the medium period from
eighteen years, two months and twenty-one days to nineteen years, one month
and ten days, and that of the minimum period from seventeen years, four months
and one day to eighteen years, two months and twenty days. Such procedure is
expressly authorized in article 82 of the Old Penal Code. Said article reads as
follows:
48

Anda mungkin juga menyukai