FG.R NO. 176795 JUNE 30, 2008 SPS. CAROLINA AND REYNALDO JOSE (PETITIONER) !"#$%$ SPS.

LAUREANO AND PURITA SUARE& FACTS: Respondents had availed of petitioner Carolina Joses offer to lend money at daily interest of 1% to 2% which the latter increased to % and respondents were forced to accept d!e to their financial distress" They so!#ht to n!llify the % interest per day fi$in# claimin# that the same were contrary to morals and done !nder vitiated consent" Thereafter% the petitioners herein filed cases of violation of &'22 a#ainst respondents where the latter filed motions to s!spend hearin#s (ased on the e$istence of a pre)!dicial *!estion" +erein respondents claimed that if the % interest rates are n!llified and loans are comp!ted at 1% per month% it wo!ld mean that the chec,s which are o()ects of &'22 cases are not only f!lly paid (!t in fact over paid" -SS./: 0hether or not a pre)!dicial *!estions e$ists s!ch that the o!tcome of the validity of the interest is determinative of the #!ilt or innocence of the respondents in the criminal case" +/12: 34 'R/J.2-C-A1 5./ST-43 /6-STS" 're)!dicial *!estions have two elements: a7 The civil actions involves an iss!e similar or intimately related to the iss!e raised in the criminal action8 (7The resol!tion of s!ch iss!e determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed" The validity or invalidity of the interest rate is not determinative of the #!ilt of the respondents in the criminal case" The ca!se or reason for iss!ance of a chec, is immaterial in determinin# criminal c!lpa(ility !nder &'22" The law p!nishes the iss!ance of the (o!ncin# chec, and not the p!rpose it was iss!ed for" PEOPLE !. NAR'AE& 9121 SCRA :;< =1<;:7> N()%#"* Appeal from decision of the CF- of So!th Cota(ato F(+)$* ?amerto 3arvae@ has (een convicted of m!rder =*!alified (y treachery7 of 2avid Fleischer and Flaviano R!(ia" 4n A!#!st 22%1<A;% 3arvae@ shot Fleischer and R!(ia d!rin# the time the two were constr!ctin# a fence that wo!ld prevent 3arvae@ from #ettin# into his ho!se and rice mill" The defendant was ta,in# a nap when he heard so!nds of constr!ction and fo!nd fence (ein# made" +ead dressed the #ro!p and as,ed them to stop destroyin# his ho!se and as,in# if they co!ld tal, thin#s over" Fleischer responded with B3o% #adamit% proceed% #o ahead"B 2efendant lost his Be*!ili(ri!m%B and shot Fleisher with his shot#!n" +e also shot R!(ia who was r!nnin# towards the )eep where the deceasedCs #!n was placed" 'rior to the shootin#% Fleischer and Co" =the company of FleischerCs family7 was involved in a le#al (attle with the defendant and other land settlers of Cota(ato over certain pieces of property" At the time of the shootin#% the civil case was still pendin# for ann!lment =settlers wanted #rantin# of property to Fleisher and Co" to (e ann!lled7" At time of the shootin#% defendant had leased his property from Fleisher =tho!#h case pendin# and ownership !ncertain7 to avoid tro!(le" 4n J!ne 2 % defendant received letter terminatin# contract (eca!se he alle#edly didnCt pay rent" +e was #iven A months to remove his ho!se from the land" Shootin# was (arely 2 months after letter" 2efendant claims he ,illed in defense of his person and property" CF- r!led that 3arvae@ was #!ilty" A##ravatin# circ!mstances of evident premeditation offset (y the miti#atin# circ!mstance of vol!ntary s!rrender" For (oth m!rders% CF- sentenced him to recl!sion perpet!a% to indemnify the heirs% and to pay for moral dama#es" I$$%"$* 3o" The co!rts conc!rred that the fencin# and chisellin# of the walls of the ho!se of the defendant was indeed a form of a##ression on the part of the victim" +owever% this a##ression was not done on the person of the victim (!t rather on his ri#hts to property" 4n the first iss!e% the co!rts did not err" +owever% inconsideration of the violation of property ri#hts% the co!rts referred to Art" :D of the civil code reco#ni@in# the ri#ht of owners to close and fence their land" Altho!#h is not in disp!te %the victim was not in the position to s!(scri(e to the article (eca!se his ownership of the land (ein# awarded (y the #overnment was still pendin#% therefore p!ttin# ownership into *!estion" -ts accepted that victim was the ori#inal a##ressor" Ees" +owever% the ar#!ment of the )!stifyin# circ!mstance of selfFdefense is applica(le only if the : re*!irements are f!lfilled" Art" 11=17 R'C en!merates these re*!isites: G.nlawf!l a##ression" -n the case at (ar% there was !nlawf!l a##ression towards appellantCs property ri#hts" Fleisher had #iven 3arvae@ A months and he sho!ld have left him in peace (efore time was !p% instead of chiselin# 3arvae@Cs ho!se and p!ttin# !p fence" A :A of the CC also provides that possession may not (e ac*!ired thro!#h force or intimidation8 while Art" :< provides that every possess or has the ri#ht to (e respected in his possession

Reasona(le necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attac," -n case% ,illin# was disproportionate to attac," G1ac, of s!fficient provocation on part of person defendin# himself" +ere% there was no provocation at all since he was asleep Since not all re*!isites present% defendant is credited wH the special miti#atin# circ!mstance of incomplete defense% p!rs!ant to A1:=A7 R'C" These miti#atin# circ!mstances are: vol!ntary s!rrender I passion I o(f!scation =read p" JD e$planation7 Crime is homicide =2 co!nts7 not m!rder (eca!se treachery is not applica(le on acco!nt of provocation (y the deceased" Also% assa!lt wasnt deli(erately chosen with view to ,ill since slayer acted instantaneo!sly" There was also no direct evidence of plannin# or preparation to ,ill" Art" 2J< R'C: 'enalty for homicide is recl!sion temporal" +owever% d!e to miti#atin# circ!mstances and incomplete defense% it can (e lowered : de#rees =Art" AJ7 to arresto mayor" 3o" +e isnt lia(le to (e s!(sidiarily imprisoned for nonFpayment of civil indemnity" RA JA made the provisions of A:< applica(le to fines only I not to reparation of dama#e ca!sed% indemnification of conse*!ential dama#es I costs of proceedin#s" Altho!#h it was enacted only after its commission% considerin# that RA JA is favora(le to the acc!sed who is nota ha(it!al delin*!ent% it may (e #iven retroactive effect p!rs!ant to R'C A22" J%,-."/)* 2efendant #!ilty of homicide (!t wH miti#atin# circ!mstances and e$ten!atin# circ!mstance of incomplete self defense" 'enalty is J mos" arresto mayor I to indemnify each #ro!p of heirs JK wHo s!(sidiary imprisonment I wHo award for moral dama#es" Appellant has already (een detained 1J yrs so his immediate release is ordered" G%)0"##"1, ,0$$"/)0/-. 2efense of property can only (e invo,ed when co!pled with form of attac, on person defendin# property" -n the case at (ar% this was not so" Appellant sho!ld then (e sentenced to prision mayor" +owever% since he has served more than that% he sho!ld (e released"

P"234" !$. R(5(/(4 Facts: Sometime in A!#!stof 1<<A% &onnie Ra(anal% a sec!rity #!ard of ?c2onalds was approached (y R!dy 'asc!a% who was armed and into$icated s!ddenly ,ic,ed the podi!m that fell on him" F!rthermore% the said R!dy 'asc!a was collectin# '1DD (!t Ra(anal ref!sed to #ive in" 'asc!a demanded that Ra(anal sho!ld s!rrender his firearm" 0hile 'asc!a was reachin# for the firearm of Ra(anal% the latter p!shed the former and #ra((ed his #!n" At that very moment p!lled the #!n and fired a shot for J times" Ra(anal ta,e possession of 'asc!as firearms and s!rrender it to the sec!rity a#ency as proof that someone attempted to ,ill him and later to Camp Crame" For the reason that 'asc!a was a (ody #!ard of one named Fernanade@ and mi#ht have infl!enced in 2a#!pan area% he ref!ses to s!rrender in the said area" The lower co!rt finds Ra(anal of the crime ?!rder and sentenced to s!ffer death penalty and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased"

2ecision of the S!preme Co!rt: 2ecision of the lower co!rt was modified from the crime of m!rder to the crime of homicide and deleted the award of dama#es was deleted" R!lin#: 1 7 For self defense to prosper% the acc!sed m!st proved that the elements that wo!ld constit!te a self L defense m!st (e present: =17 !nlawf!l a##ression on the part of the victim8 =27 reasona(le necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it8 and =:7 lac, of s!fficient provocation on the part of the person defendin# himself" Altho!#h all the three elements m!st conc!r% selfFdefense m!st rest firstly on proof of !nlawf!l a##ression on the part of the victim" -f no !nlawf!l a##ression has (een proved% no selfFdefense may (e s!ccessf!lly pleaded% whether complete or incomplete" -n other words in selfF defense% !nlawf!l a##ression is a primordial element" -t pres!pposes an act!al% s!dden and !ne$pected attac, or imminent dan#er on the life and lim( of a person not a mere threatenin# or intimidatin# attit!de at the time the defensive action was ta,en a#ainst the a##ressor" There is !nlawf!l a##ression when the peril to ones life% lim( or ri#ht is either act!al or imminent" Act!al peril to ones life means that the dan#er m!st (e present% that is% act!ally in e$istence% or imminent in that

the dan#er ison the point of happenin#" This cannot (e said in this case (eca!se the victim was !narmed when he was shot (y acc!sedFappellant" -ndeed% the dan#er had already ceased when the victim laid his #!n down on the pavement% th!s ena(lin# acc!sedFappellant to p!sh him away" -t m!st (e remem(ered that the means employed (y the person ma,in# a defense m!st (e rationally necessary to prevent or repel an !nlawf!l a##ression" 0hat the law re*!ires is a rational e*!ivalence% in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emer#ency% the imminent dan#er to which the person attac,ed is e$posed% and the instinct more than reason% that moves or impels the defense8 and the proportionateness thereof does not depend !pon the harm done% (!t !pon the imminent dan#er of s!ch in)!ry" 27 They affirmed the award of civil indemnity in the amo!nt of ' D%DDD"DD% p!rs!ant to prevailin# )!rispr!dence" S!ch award re*!ires no proof other than the death of the victim" 1i,ewise% the award of moral dama#es in the amo!nt of ' D%DDD"DD is consistent with controllin# case law ta,in# into consideration the pain and an#!ish of the victims family (ro!#ht a(o!t (y his death" +owever% the award of '2A%DDD"DD for the /ternal Marden plot% 'AD%DDD"DD for the coffin of the victim and '1DD%DDD"DD for the wa,e and other e$penses inc!rred in connection with the death of the deceased% amo!ntin# to a total of '1;A%DDD"DD% sho!ld (e modified" The trial co!rt did not present any comp!tation to )!stify s!ch an amo!nt" -n fact% other than the (are alle#ations of the victims widow to this effect% the records are totally (ereft of any receipt or vo!cher to )!stify the trial co!rts award for (!rial and other e$penses" The r!le is that every pec!niary loss m!st (e esta(lished (y credi(le evidence (efore it may (e awarded" Credence can (e #iven only to claims which are d!ly s!pported (y receipts or other credi(le evidence" Th!s% the amo!nt of act!al dama#es sho!ld accordin#ly (e red!ced to 'AA%DDD"

PEOPLE '. CA6UNGCAL 7NARCISO Appellant invited several persons to a picnic in a fishery" They spent the day at the fishery and ret!rned in two (oats" -n the (oat steered (y the appellant% the ma)ority were women% amon# them are appellants wife and son and a n!rsin# child" .pon reachin# a place of #reat depth% the deceased roc,ed the (oat" Appellant as,ed the deceased not to roc, the (oat" The deceased paid no attention" Appellant str!c, him in the forehead (y an oar" 2eceased fell into the water and was s!(mer#ed" After a while appeared% sayin# that he is #oin# to capsi@e it and started to move it" Appellant str!c, him on the nec," +/12: /$empt from criminal lia(ility" AC5.-T/2" Acted in defense of his wife% child and other passen#ers"

PEOPLE '. JO8NNY DELA CRU& G.R. NO. 133921 3ovem(er 2N% 2D1D Acc!sed was convicted of rape" The char#e was filed 12 years after the alle#ed incident% when the victim was already 2D years old" +/12: An acc!sation of rape can (e made with facility and while the acc!sation is diffic!lt to prove% it is even more diffic!lt for the person acc!sed% altho!#h innocent to disprove the char#e" -n rape cases% the testimony of the complainant m!st stand or fall on its own merits and sho!ld never (e allowed to draw stren#th from the wea,ness of the evidence of the defense" The lon# delay of the complainant in reportin# the incident ma,es it diffic!lt for the co!rt not to have compellin# do!(ts on the veracity of her episode" 'roof of #!ilt (eyond reasona(le do!(t not proven" case di#ests% case di#ests of s!preme co!rt decisions% case di#ests 'hilippines% mo(ile phone deals% laptop comp!ters% #ad#ets% free le#al opinion% online )o(s% (est law firms in ?indanao

PEOPLE !. DE LA CRU& 997 SCRA 385 (1980): 3ovem(er 1D% 2D1D

A#apito de la Cr!@ was fo!nd #!ilty as principal (y ind!cement of the crime of Kidnappin# and Serio!s -lle#al 2etention% and sentencin# him to death" O The facts are s!ch that A#apito met !p wH ?ohamad Sa#ap Salip% Alih -t!m and a certain Asmad and proposed to them the ,illin# of Antonio E! I the ,idnappin# of the Antonios yo!n#er (ro E! Chi Chon#% for ransom" A#apito happened to (e the oversser of Antonios r!((er I cocon!t land for no less than 1D yrs O +e #ave them instr!ctions as to how and where to locate the E! (rothers at a #iven time and how they were to am(!sh the (rothers" =&!t he didnt directly participate in act!al crime7 O &!t Antonio had to #o somewhere and so the yo!n#er E! went with -sa(elo ?ancenido to -sa(ela =-sa(elo -sa(ela hehe"" f!nny""7" The yo!n#er E! was am(!shed as instr!cted (!t when E! Chi Chon# tried to escape (y stri,in# An#ih with a piece of wood% An#ih #ot so pissed he shot E! several times% ,illin# him" O The #!n shots alerted the villa#ers so the ,idnappers fled" 0hen the villa#ers left after seein# the (ody =they said theyll come (ac, in the mornin# with police in tow7% the ,idnappers too, the (ody and threw it in the ocean" O Antonio testified and provided the possi(le motive for A#apito to commit s!ch crime" A#apito was assi#ned mana#er and administrator of the farm (!t when the yo!n#er E! came (ac,% A#apito was demoted to overseer" F!rther% profits were hi#her with E! as mana#er and Antonio (ecame stricter with A#apito" A#apito was convicted as mastermind or principal (y ind!cement -ss!e: 043 A#apito sho!ld (e convicted as mastermind or principal (y ind!cement in the a(sence of the elements of conspiracy to the crime char#ed" O o o O 34" The re*!isites necessary in order that a person may (e convicted as a principal (y ind!cement are: That the ind!cement (e made directly with the intention of proc!rin# the commission of the crime8 and That s!ch ind!cement (e the determinin# ca!se of the commission of the crime (y the material e$ec!tor The fore#oin# re*!isites are ind!(ita(le present in this case

O Jamas J!maidi I 4yon# Asidin% 2 dischar#ed witnesses% testified that Asmad I Amil contacted them to #o to &asilan to do a )o( for A#apito" O 0hen the #ro!p was (ro!#ht face to face with him% he lost no time in layin# down the strate#y for the ,illin# of Antonio E! and the ,idnappin# of E! Chi Chon# for ransom" O -t was he who ,new when the tr!c, of the intended victims wo!ld #o to 1atawan to load the copra to (e delivered to -sa(ela" O +e ,new the ro!te the tr!c, wo!ld ta,e I the appro$imate time that it was to pass (y" +e even selected the am(!sh place" O Clearly% he had positive resol!tion to proc!re the commission of the crime" +e% too% presented the stron#est ,ind of temptation% a pec!niary #ain in the form of ransom% wHc was the determinin# factor of the commission of the crime (y his coF acc!sed" O 0Ho him% the crime wo!ld not have (een conceived% m!ch less committed" Clearly% he was a principal (y ind!ction% with collective criminal responsi(ility with the material e$ec!tors" O 4ne is ind!ced to commit a crime either (y a commans =precepto7 or for a consideration =pacto7% or (y any other similar act wHc constit!tes the real and movin# ca!se of the crime I wHc was done for the p!rpose of ind!cin# s!ch criminal act I was s!fficient for that p!rpose" The person who #ives promises% or offers the consideration I the one who act!ally commits the crime (y reason of s!ch promise% rem!neration or reward are (oth principals" O The ind!cer need not ta,e part in the commission of the offense" 1 who ind!ces another to commit a crime is #!ilty as principal even tho!#h he mi#ht have ta,en no part in its material e$ec!tion"

PEOPLE '. SA6IO

0hen Teodoro Sa(io was s*!attin# with a =-rvin# J!rilla7 friend% Romeo &aco(o and two others approached them" &aco(o as,ed Sa(io where he spent the holy wee," +e #ave Sa(io a footF,ic, #reetin#" Sa(io stood !p there!pon and #ave &aco(o a fist (low" The wo!nds of &aco(o too, 11 to 12 days to heal" 1/SS '+ES-CA1 -3J.RE +/12: AFF-R?/2 -3 T4T4 For !nlawf!l a##ression to (e present% there m!st (e real dan#er to life or personal safety"

G.R. N2. L 2373;

A3#04 27, 1967

T8E PEOPLE OF T8E P8ILIPPINES, plaintiffFappellee% vs" TEODORO SA6IO, defendantFappellant" 6ENG&ON, J.P. J.: At a(o!t si$ p"m" of April 12% 1<A:% Teodoro Sa(io was s*!attin# with a friend% -rvin# J!rilla% in the pla@a of Central ?anapla% ?anapla% 3e#ros 4ccidental" Romeo &aco(o and two others P R!(en ?iQosa and 1eonardo Marcia P approached them" All of them were close and old friends" Romeo &aco(o then as,ed Sa(io where he spent the holy wee," At the same time% he #ave Sa(io a Bfoot,ic, #reetin#B% to!chin# Sa(ioCs foot with his own left foot" Sa(io there!pon stood !p and dealt Romeo &aco(o a fist (low% inflictin# !pon him a lacerated wo!nd% R inch lon#% at the !pper lid of the left eye" -t too, from 11 to 12 days to heal and prevented Romeo &aco(o from wor,in# d!rin# said period as employee of Sictorias ?illin# Co"% -nc" Sa(io was thereafter prosec!ted for less serio!s physical in)!ries" -n the m!nicipal co!rt he was fo!nd #!ilty and sentenced to imprisonment of months and 1D days pl!s costs" -n the Co!rt of First -nstance% however% to which he appealed% he was fo!nd #!ilty (!t with the miti#atin# circ!mstance of provocation% so that the penalty imposed was one =17 month and five = 7 days of arresto mayor pl!s indemnity of '1DD and costs"1wph1.t 2efendant appealed from this )!d#ment to .s to raise as a p!re *!estion of law the sole iss!e of whether% !nder the facts is determined (elow% a fist (low delivered in retaliation to a BfootF,ic, #reetin#B is an act of selfFdefense andHor )!stifyin# circ!mstance entitlin# the acc!sed to ac*!ittal and relief from all lia(ilities% civil and criminal" A primordial re*!isite for selfFdefense is !nlawf!l a##ression =Art" 11% Rev" 'enal Code7" And for !nlawf!l% a##ression to (e present% there m!st (e real dan#er to life or personal safety ='eople vs" &eatri@ E!man% A1 'hil" N;A7" For this reason% a mere p!sh or a shove% not followed (y other acts% has (een held ins!fficient to constit!te !nlawf!l a##ression ='eople vs" E!man% supra7" A playf!l ,ic, P the lower co!rt re)ected defendantCs claim that it was a Bvicio!s ,ic,B P at the foot my way of #reetin# (etween friends may (e a practical )o,e% and may even h!rt8 (!t it is not a serio!s or real attac, on a personCs safety" AppellantCs s!(mission that it amo!nts to !nlawf!l a##ression cannot therefore (e s!stained" As ri#htly fo!nd (y the Co!rt of First -nstance% s!ch ,ic, was only a mere sli#ht provocation" Reference is made to a decision of the S!preme Co!rt of Spain =prom" Jan" 2D% 1<DJ% N2 J!r" Crim" 12:F12 7% considerin# a slap on the face an !nlawf!l a##ression" 3o parity lies (etween said case and the present" Since the face represents a person and his di#nity% slappin#% it is a serio!s personal attac," -t is a physical assa!lt co!pled with a willf!l disre#ard% nay% a defiance% of in individ!alCs personality" -t may therefore (e fre*!ently re#arded as placin# in real dan#er a personCs di#nity% ri#hts and safety" A friendly ,ic, delivered on a personCs foot o(vio!sly falls short of s!ch personal a##ression" 0herefore% the )!d#ment appealed from is here(y affirmed in toto" Costs a#ainst appellant" So ordered"

C.A. N2. 38;

F"5#%(#< 21, 19;6

T8E PEOPLE OF T8E P8ILIPPINES, plaintiffFappellee% vs" NICOLAS JAURIGUE (/, A'ELINA JAURIGUE, defendants" A'ELINA JAURIGUE, appellant" DE JOYA, J.* 3icolas Ja!ri#!e and Avelina Ja!ri#!e were prosec!ted in the Co!rt of First -nstance of Taya(as% for the crime of m!rder% of which 3icolas Ja!ri#!e was ac*!itted% (!t defendant Avelina Ja!ri#!e was fo!nd #!ilty of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ran#in# from seven years% fo!r months and one day of prision mayor to thirteen years% nine months and eleven days of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties provided (y law% to indemnify the heirs of the deceased% Amando Capina% in the s!m of '2%DDD% and to pay oneFhalf of the costs" She was also credited with oneFhalf of the period of preventive imprisonment s!ffered (y her" From said )!d#ment of conviction% defendant Avelina Ja!ri#!e appealed to the Co!rt of Appeals for So!thern 1!@on% and in her (rief filed therein on J!ne 1D% 1<JJ% claimed P =17 That the lower co!rt erred in not holdin# that said appellant had acted in the le#itimate defense of her honor and that she sho!ld (e completely a(solved of all criminal responsi(ility8 =27 That the lower co!rt erred in not findin# in her favor the additional miti#atin# circ!mstances that =a7 she did not have the intention to commit so #rave a wron# as that act!ally committed% and that =(7 she vol!ntarily s!rrendered to the a#ents of the a!thorities8 and =:7 That the trial co!rt erred in holdin# that the commission of the alle#ed offense was attended (y the a##ravatin# circ!mstance of havin# (een committed in a sacred place" The evidence add!ced (y the parties% at the trial in the co!rt (elow% has s!fficiently esta(lished the followin# facts: That (oth the defendant and appellant Avelina Ja!ri#!e and the deceased Amado Capina lived in the (arrio of Sta" -sa(el% City of San 'a(lo% 'rovince of 1a#!na8 that for sometime prior to the sta((in# of the deceased (y defendant and appellant% in the evenin# of Septem(er 2D% 1<J2% the former had (een co!rtin# the latter in vain% and that on one occasion% a(o!t one month (efore that fatal ni#ht% Amado Capina snatched a hand,erchief (elon#in# to her% (earin# her nic,name BAvelin#%B while it was (ein# washed (y her co!sin% Josefa Tapay" 4n Septem(er 1:% 1<J2% while Avelina was feedin# a do# !nder her ho!se% Amado approached her and spo,e to her of his love% which she flatly ref!sed% and he there!pon s!ddenly em(raced and ,issed her and to!ched her (reasts% on acco!nt of which Avelina% resol!te and *!ic,Ftempered #irl% slapped Amado% #ave him fist (lows and ,ic,ed him" She ,ept the matter to herself% !ntil the followin# mornin# when she informed her mother a(o!t it" Since then% she armed herself with a lon# fan ,nife% whenever she went o!t% evidently for selfFprotection" 4n Septem(er 1 % 1<J2% a(o!t midni#ht% Amado clim(ed !p the ho!se of defendant and appellant% and s!rreptitio!sly entered the room where she was sleepin#" +e felt her forehead% evidently with the intention of a(!sin# her" She immediately screamed for help% which awa,ened her parents and (ro!#ht them to her side" Amado came o!t from where he had hidden !nder a (ed in AvelinaCs room and ,issed the hand of 3icolas Ja!ri#!e% her father% as,in# for for#iveness8 and when AvelinaCs mother made an attempt to (eat Amado% her h!s(and prevented her from doin# so% statin# that Amado pro(a(ly did not reali@e what he was doin#" 3icolas Ja!ri#!e sent for the (arrio lie!tenant% Casimiro 1o@ada% and for AmadoCs parents% the followin# mornin#" AmadoCs parents came to the ho!se of 3icolas Ja!ri#!e and apolo#i@ed for the miscond!ct of their son8 and as 3icolas Ja!ri#!e was then an#ry% he told them to end the conversation% as he mi#ht not (e a(le to control himself" -n the mornin# of Septem(er 2D% 1<J2% Avelina received information that Amado had (een falsely (oastin# in the nei#h(orhood of havin# ta,en li(erties with her person and that she had even as,ed him to elope with her and that if he sho!ld not marry her% she wo!ld ta,e poison8 and that Avelina a#ain received information of AmadoCs (ra##in# at a(o!t oCcloc, in the afternoon of that same day" At a(o!t ; oCcloc, in the evenin# of the same day% Septem(er 2D% 1<J2% 3icolas Ja!ri#!e went to the chapel of the Seventh 2ay Adventists of which he was the treas!rer% in their (arrio% )!st across the provincial road from his ho!se% to attend reli#io!s services% and sat on the front (ench facin# the altar with the other officials of the or#ani@ation and the (arrio lie!tenant% Casimiro 1o@ada" -nside the chapel it was *!ite (ri#ht as there were electric li#hts"

2efendant and appellant Avelina Ja!ri#!e entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father% also for the p!rpose of attendin# reli#io!s services% and sat on the (ench ne$t to the last one nearest the door" Amado Capina was seated on the other side of the chapel" .pon o(servin# the presence of Avelina Ja!ri#!e% Amado Capina went to the (ench on which Avelina was sittin# and sat (y her ri#ht side% and% witho!t sayin# a word% Amado% with the #reatest of imp!dence% placed his hand on the !pper part of her ri#ht thi#h" 4n o(servin# this hi#hly improper and offensive cond!ct of Amado Capina% Avelina Ja!ri#!e% conscio!s of her personal di#nity and honor% p!lled o!t with her ri#ht hand the fan ,nife mar,ed /$hi(it &% which she had in a poc,et of her dress% with the intention of p!nishin# AmadoCs offendin# hand" Amado sei@ed AvelinaCs ri#ht hand% (!t she *!ic,ly #ra((ed the ,nife with her left hand and sta((ed Amado once at the (ase of the left side of the nec,% inflictin# !pon him a wo!nd a(o!t J 1H2 inches deep% which was necessarily mortal" 3icolas Ja!ri#!e% who was seated on one of the front (enches% saw Amado (leedin# and sta##erin# towards the altar% and !pon seein# his da!#hter still holdin# the (loody ,nife% he approached her and as,ed: B0hy did yo! do that%B and answerin# him Avelina said: BFather% - co!ld not end!re anymore"B Amado Capina died from the wo!nd a few min!tes later" &arrio lie!tenant Casimiro 1o@ada% who was also in the same chapel% approached Avelina and as,ed her why she did that% and Avelina s!rrendered herself% sayin#: BKayo na po an# (ahala sa a*!in%B meanin#: B- hope yo! will ta,e care of me%B or more correctly% B- place myself at yo!r disposal"B Fearin# that AmadoCs relatives mi#ht retaliate% (arrio lie!tenant 1o@ada advised 3icolas Ja!ri#!e and herein defendant and appellant to #o home immediately% to close their doors and windows and not to admit any(ody into the ho!se% !nless accompanied (y him" That father and da!#hter went home and loc,ed themselves !p% followin# instr!ctions of the (arrio lie!tenant% and waited for the arrival of the m!nicipal a!thorities8 and when three policemen arrived in their ho!se% at a(o!t 1D oCcloc, that ni#ht% and *!estioned them a(o!t the incident% defendant and appellant immediately s!rrendered the ,nife mar,ed as /$hi(it &% and informed said policemen (riefly of what had act!ally happened in the chapel and of the previo!s acts and cond!ct of the deceased% as already stated a(ove% and went with said policemen to the police head*!arters% where her written statements were ta,en% and which were presented as a part of the evidence for the prosec!tion" The hi#h conception of womanhood that o!r people possess% however h!m(le they may (e% is !niversal" -t has (een entertained and has e$isted in all civili@ed comm!nities" A (ea!tif!l woman is said to (e a )ewel8 a #ood woman% a treas!re8 and that a virt!o!s woman represents the only tr!e no(ility" And they are the f!t!re wives and mothers of the land" S!ch are the reasons why% in the defense of their honor% when (r!tally attac,ed% women are permitted to ma,e !se of all reasona(le means availa(le within their reach% !nder the circ!mstances" Criminolo#ists and co!rts of )!stice have entertained and !pheld this view" 4n the other hand% it is the d!ty of every man to protect and show loyalty to womanhood% as in the days of chivalry" There is a co!ntry where women freely #o o!t !nescorted and% li,e the (ea!tif!l roses in their p!(lic #ardens% they always receive the protection of all" That co!ntry is Swit@erland" -n the lan#!a#e of Siada% aside from the ri#ht to life on which rests the le#itimate defense of o!r own person% we have the ri#ht to property ac*!ired (y !s% and the ri#ht to honor which is not the least pri@ed of o!r patrimony =1 Siada% Codi#o 'enal% th ed"% pp" 1N2% 1N:7" The attempt to rape a woman constit!tes an !nlawf!l a##ression s!fficient to p!t her in a state of le#itimate defense% inasm!ch as a womanCs honor cannot (!t (e esteemed as a ri#ht as precio!s% if not more% than her very e$istence8 and it is evident that a woman who% th!s imperiled% wo!nds% nay ,ills the offender% sho!ld (e afforded e$emption from criminal lia(ility% since s!ch ,illin# cannot (e considered a crime from the moment it (ecame the only means left for her to protect her honor from so #reat an o!tra#e =1 Siada% Codi#o 'enal% th ed"% p" :D18 'eople vs" 1!a#!e and Alcansare% A2 'hil"% DJ7" " As lon# as there is act!al dan#er of (ein# raped% a woman is )!stified in ,illin# her a##ressor% in the defense of her honor" Th!s% where the deceased #ra((ed the defendant in a dar, ni#ht at a(o!t < oCcloc,% in an isolated (arrio trail% holdin# her firmly from (ehind% witho!t warnin# and witho!t revealin# his identity% and% in the str!##le that followed% to!ched her private parts% and that she was !na(le to free herself (y means of her stren#th alone% she was considered )!stified in ma,in# !se of a poc,et ,nife in repellin# what she (elieved to (e an attac, !pon her honor% and which ended in his death% since she had no other means of defendin# herself% and conse*!ently e$empt from all criminal lia(ility ='eople vs" 2e la Cr!@% 1A 'hil"% :JJ7" And a woman% in defense of her honor% was perfectly )!stified in inflictin# wo!nds on her assailant with a (olo which she happened to (e carryin# at the time% even tho!#h her cry for assistance mi#ht have (een heard (y people near(y% when the deceased tried to assa!lt her in a dar, and isolated place% while she was #oin# from her ho!se to a certain tienda% for the p!rpose of ma,in# p!rchases =.nited States vs" Santa Ana and Ramos% 22 'hil"% 2J<7" -n the case% however% in which a sleepin# woman was awa,ened at ni#ht (y someone to!chin# her arm% and% (elievin# that some person was attemptin# to a(!se her% she as,ed who the intr!der was and receivin# no reply% attac,ed and ,illed the said person with a poc,et ,nife% it was held that% notwithstandin# the womanCs (elief in the s!pposed attempt% it was not s!fficient provocation or a##ression to )!stify her completely in !sin# deadly weapon" Altho!#h she act!ally (elieved it to (e

the (e#innin# of an attempt a#ainst her% she was not completely warranted in ma,in# s!ch a deadly assa!lt% as the in)!red person% who t!rned o!t to (e her own (rotherFinFlaw ret!rnin# home with his wife% did not do any other act which co!ld (e considered as an attempt a#ainst her honor =.nited States vs" Ape#o% 2: 'hil"% :<17"" -n the instant case% if defendant and appellant had ,illed Amado Capina% when the latter clim(ed !p her ho!se late at ni#ht on Septem(er 1 % 1<J2% and s!rreptitio!sly entered her (edroom% !ndo!(tedly for the p!rpose of rapin# her% as indicated (y his previo!s acts and cond!ct% instead of merely sho!tin# for help% she co!ld have (een perfectly )!stified in ,illin# him% as shown (y the a!thorities cited a(ove"" Accordin# to the facts esta(lished (y the evidence and fo!nd (y the learned trial co!rt in this case% when the deceased sat (y the side of defendant and appellant on the same (ench% near the door of the (arrio chapel and placed his hand on the !pper portion of her ri#ht thi#h% witho!t her consent% the said chapel was li#hted with electric li#hts% and there were already several people% a(o!t ten of them% inside the chapel% incl!din# her own father and the (arrio lie!tenant and other di#nitaries of the or#ani@ation8 and !nder the circ!mstances% there was and there co!ld (e no possi(ility of her (ein# raped" And when she #ave Amado Capina a thr!st at the (ase of the left side of his nec,% inflictin# !pon him a mortal wo!nd J 1H2 inches deep% ca!sin# his death a few moments later% the means employed (y her in the defense of her honor was evidently e$cessive8 and !nder the facts and circ!mstances of the case% she cannot (e le#ally declared completely e$empt from criminal lia(ility"" &!t the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and vol!ntarily and !nconditionally s!rrendered to the (arrio lie!tenant in said chapel% admittin# havin# sta((ed the deceased% immediately after the incident% and a#reed to #o to her ho!se shortly thereafter and to remain there s!()ect to the order of the said (arrio lie!tenant% an a#ent of the a!thorities =.nited States vs" Fortale@a% 12 'hil"% JN278 and the f!rther fact that she had acted in the immediate vindication of a #rave offense committed a#ainst her a few moments (efore% and !pon s!ch provocation as to prod!ce passion and o(f!scation% or temporary loss of reason and selfFcontrol% sho!ld (e considered as miti#atin# circ!mstances in her favor ='eople vs" 'arana% AJ 'hil"% ::18 'eople vs" Sa,am% A1 'hil"% 2N8 .nited States vs" Arri(as% 1 'hil"% ;A7" 2efendant and appellant f!rther claims that she had not intended to ,ill the deceased (!t merely wanted to p!nish his offendin# hand with her ,nife% as shown (y the fact that she inflicted !pon him only one sin#le wo!nd" And this is another miti#atin# circ!mstance which sho!ld (e considered in her favor =.nited States vs" &ro(st% 1J 'hil"% :1D8 .nited States vs" 2ia@% 1 'hil"% 12:7" The claim of the prosec!tion% s!stained (y the learned trial co!rt% that the offense was committed (y the defendant and appellant% with the a##ravatin# circ!mstance that the ,illin# was done in a place dedicated to reli#io!s worship% cannot (e le#ally s!stained8 as there is no evidence to show that the defendant and appellant had m!rder in her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal ni#ht" Avelina is not a criminal (y nat!re" She happened to ,ill !nder the #reatest provocation" She is a ModFfearin# yo!n# woman% typical of o!r co!ntry #irls% who still possess the consolation of reli#io!s hope in a world where so many others have hopelessly lost the faith of their elders and now driftin# away they ,now not where" The *!estions raised in the second and third assi#nments of error appear% therefore% to (e well ta,en8 and so is the first assi#nment of error to a certain de#ree" -n the mind of the co!rt% there is not the least do!(t that% in sta((in# to death the deceased Amado Capina% in the manner and form and !nder the circ!mstances a(ove indicated% the defendant and appellant committed the crime of homicide% with no a##ravatin# circ!mstance whatsoever% (!t with at least three miti#atin# circ!mstances of a *!alified character to (e considered in her favor8 and% in accordance with the provisions of article A< of the Revised 'enal Code% she is entitled to a red!ction (y one or two de#rees in the penalty to (e imposed !pon her" And considerin# the circ!mstances of the instant case% the defendant and appellant sho!ld (e accorded the most li(eral consideration possi(le !nder the law =.nited States vs" Ape#o% 2: 'hil"% :<18 .nited States vs" Rivera% J1 'hil"% JN28 'eople vs" ?ercado% J: 'hil"% < D7"" The law prescri(es the penalty of reclusion temporal for the crime of homicide8 and if it sho!ld (e red!ced (y two de#rees% the penalty to (e imposed in the instant case is that of prision correccional8 and p!rs!ant to the provisions of section 1 of Act 3o" J1D: of the 'hilippine 1e#islat!re% ,nown as the -ndeterminate Sentence 1aw% herein defendant and appellant sho!ld (e sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ran#in# from arresto mayor in its medi!m de#ree% to prision correccional in its medi!m de#ree" Conse*!ently% with the modification of )!d#ment appealed from% defendant and appellant Avelina Ja!ri#!e is here(y sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ran#in# from two months and one day of arresto mayor% as minim!m% to two years% fo!r months% and one day ofprision correccional% as ma$im!m% with the accessory penalties prescri(ed (y law% to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Amado Capina% in the s!m of '2%DDD% and to s!ffer the correspondin# s!(sidiary imprisonment% not to e$ceed 1H: of the principal penalty% in case of insolvency% and to pay the costs" 2efendant and appellant sho!ld also (e #iven the (enefit of 1H2 of her preventive imprisonment% and the ,nife mar,ed /$hi(it & ordered confiscated" So ordered""

S"3(#()" O30/02/$ 8ILADO, J., conc!rrin#: -n past dissentin# and conc!rrin# opinions my view re#ardin# the validity or n!llity of )!dicial proceedin#s in the JapaneseF sponsored co!rts which f!nctioned in the 'hilippines d!rin# the Japanese occ!pation has (een consistent" - am not a(andonin# it" &!t in deference to the ma)ority who s!stain the opposite view% and (eca!se no party liti#ant herein has raised the *!estion% - have ta,en part in the consideration of this case on the merits" And% votin# on the merits% - conc!r in the fore#oin# decision penned (y J!stice 2e Joya" 9G.R. N2. 120853. =(#+> 13, 1997: PAT. RUDY AL=EDA%Petitioner% vs" C4.RT 4F A''/A1S and '/4'1/ 4F T+/ '+-1-''-3/S, Respondents" 2/C-S-43 FRA3C-SC4% J": This is a case of homicide" 'etitioner R!dy Almeda was char#ed with m!rder (efore the Re#ional Trial Co!rt =RTC7 of Tanda#% S!ri#ao del S!r in an information which reads as follows: BThat on the 2<th day of 3ovem(er 1<;;% at a(o!t N::D oCcloc, in the evenin#% more or less% inside &a!tistaCs Food and Snac, -nn at Capitol +ills% Tanda#% province of S!ri#ao del S!r% 'hilippines% and within the )!risdiction of this +onora(le Co!rt% the a(oveFnamed% with intent to ,ill% treachery and evident premeditation% did% then and there% willf!lly% !nlawf!lly and felonio!sly shoot several times one% C&1 1eo 'ilapil Sela(ao% 'C ?em(er% with the !se of a cali(er J nic,led pistol% there(y inflictin# !pon the latter the followin# wo!nds% to wit: 1" M!nshot wo!nd 1 cm" in diameter with point of entry 1 cm" lateral to the Ath thoracic cavity% penetratin# l!n# thr! and thr!% with point of e$it 2 cm" (elow the left nipple" 2" M!nshot wo!nd 1 cm" in diameter with point of entry at midscap!lar area left at the level of Jth thoracic verte(ra% penetratin# the thoracic cavity% penetratin# the heart thr! and thr!% with point of e$it at level of @iphoid process" :" M!nshot wo!nd 1 cm" in diameter with point of entry : cm" left lateral to the :rd thoracic verte(ra% posterior chest wall penetratin# the thoracic cavity% penetratin# the mediatin!m thr! and thr!" Sl!# lod#ed s,in deep" J" M!nshot wo!nd 1 cm" in diameter with point of entry J cm" from midline ri#ht occipital area thr! and thr! with point of e$it prea!ric!lar area ri#ht" " M!nshot wo!nd 1 cm" in diameter with #!npowder tatooin# =sic7 left infra a!ric!lar area thr! and thr! with point of e$it at the ri#ht side of the nec, 2 cm" (eside the oricoid cartila#e" A" M!nshot wo!nd 1 cm" in diameter with #!npowder tatooin# =sic7 with point of entry at left side of nec, at level of Jth cervical verte(ra% tan#ential with point of e$it at left side of the nec, at the level of th cervical verte(ra =a(o!t J cm" from point of entry7% which wo!nds have ca!sed the instantaneo!s death of C&1 1eo '" Sala(ao% to the dama#e and pre)!dice of his heirs in the followin# amo!nts: ' D%DDD"DD as life indemnity of the victim8 1D%DDD"DD as moral dama#es8 and 1D%DDD"DD as e$emplary dama#es" CONTRARY TO LA?. =-n violation of Art" 2J; of the Revised 'enal Code"7B 1chanro(lesvirt!allawli(rary 2!rin# arrai#nment% petitioner pleaded not #!ilty" After trial% the lower co!rt 2 convicted petitioner of homicide only and appreciated in his favor two miti#atin# circ!mstances" : The prosec!tion filed a motion for reconsideration with re#ard to the

appreciation of the miti#atin# circ!mstances" 4n J!ly 2:% 1<<2% the lower co!rt #ranted the motion and modified its earlier decision" The dispositive portion of the modified )!d#ment reads: 0+/R/F4R/% findin# acc!sed R!dy Almeda M.-1TE (eyond reasona(le do!(t of +4?-C-2/% and there (ein# neither miti#atin# nor a##ravatin# circ!mstances which attended the commission of the offense% (!t applyin# the -ndeterminate Sentence law% the Co!rt here(y sentences him to s!ffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ran#in# from ei#ht =;7 years and one =17 day of prision mayor% as minim!m% to fo!rteen =1J7 years% ei#ht =;7 months and one =17 day of reclusion temporal% as ma$im!m8 to pay the heirs of the deceased victim 'C C(l" 1eo Sala(ao the s!m of Fifty Tho!sand = D%DDD7 'esos as life indemnity and ten tho!sand =1D% DDD7 'esos as moral dama#es% witho!t s!(sidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency8 and to pay the cost" The (ail (ond p!t !p (y the acc!sed for his provisional li(erty is ordered cancelled" S4 4R2/R/2"Jchanro(lesvirt!allawli(rary 4n appeal% the Co!rt of Appeals =CA7 affirmed the modified )!d#ment" +ence this petition where petitioner imp!tes error to the appellate co!rt in =17 not findin# that he acted in defense of stran#ers% and =27 in failin# to appreciate in his favor the miti#atin# circ!mstances of s!fficient provocation and vol!ntary s!rrender" The anterior facts a(ly s!pported (y evidence on record are s!mmari@ed (y the CA as follows: 4n 3ovem(er 2<% 1<;;% at appro$imately :DD oCcloc, in the afternoon% J!lian +errera% Jr"% to#ether with his two nephews 2onato Sala(ao and 'C Consta(le 1eo Sala(ao arrived at the &a!tistaCs Snac, -nn to fetch S!sonte ?ontero who lived in the same town with +errera" =TS3% Jan!ary 22% 1<<2% p" A7 +errera as,ed 2onato to enter the snac, inn and inform ?ontero that they were ready to head home" +owever% ?ontero was in the middle of a drin,in# spree with Sice Movernor Acosta and the latterCs companions% one of whom was Almeda who was the Sice MovernorCs (ody#!ard" .pon the invitation of Sice Movernor Acosta% +errera )oined the drin,in# session and left his nephews in the service )eep" =TS3 Jan" 2:% 1<<2% p" 7 After a(o!t an ho!r% the Sala(ao (rothers ali#hted and so!#ht shelter in the covered porch of the &a!tistaCs Snac, -nn" =TS3% Jan" 2:% 1<<2% p" A7 Shortly thereafter% Feli$ Amora% who was amon# the drin,in# companions of the Sice Movernor and the then Comm!nity 2evelopment 4fficer and Civil 2efense Coordinator% stepped o!t of the inn and saw the Sala(ao (rothers" -r,ed (eca!se C(l" 1eo Sala(ao failed to sal!te him% Amora confronted the former and ordered C(l" Sala(ao to sal!te him" C(l" Sala(ao co!ntered that since Amora was not ,nown to him as a 'C officer and was in civilian clothes he was not compelled to sal!te him"=Ibid.7 Their ar#!ment #ot the attention of +errera who went o!t to pacify them" +e then as,ed Amora and the Sala(ao (rothers to #et inside" =TS3% Jan" 22% 1<<2% p" 1D7 4nce inside% C(l" Sala(ao sat at the ri#ht side of Almeda while Amora sat opposite Almeda at the left side of +errera" =TS3% Jan" 22% 1<<2% p" 12F1J7 2onato Sala(ao% on the other hand% sat near the co!nter" =TS3% Jan" 2:% 1<<2% p" N7 .n,nown to the Sala(ao (rothers% d!rin# the past ho!r% +errera had himself (een ar#!in# with Sice Movernor Acosta (eca!se of the latterCs acc!sation that +errera was involved in anomalo!s transactions" =TS3% Jan" 22% 1<<2% p" NF<7 A short time after the Sala(ao (rothers had seated themselves% +erreraCs ar#!ment with Acosta res!med" At this )!nct!re Acosta stood !p% pres!ma(ly to pay for the (eer he had ordered% and whispered somethin# to Almeda" Almeda promptly #ra((ed the (arrel of the armalite rifle which C(l" Sala(ao carried with him and p!shed it down" =TS3% Jan" 22% 1<<2% p" 1A8 TS3% Jan" 2:% 1<<2% p" ;7 Sim!ltaneo!sly% Almeda p!lled o!t his"J cali(er pistol pointed it at C(l" Sala(aoCs head and shot the latter in the left temple" As C(l" Sala(ao sta##ered Almeda fired five more shots fellin# =sic7 the former" =TS3% Jan" 22% 1<<2% p" 2DF218 TS3% Jan" 2:% 1<<2 p" 127 After which Almeda pic,ed !p C(l" Sala(aoCs armalite% coc,ed it and than =sic7 pointed it at 2onato Sala(ao who immediately raised his hands" =TS3% Jan" 2:% 1<<2 p" 1:7 Almeda then left alon# with the Sice Movernor and his companions" The followin# day% at appro$imately N:DD oCcloc, in the mornin#% Almeda was arrested (y a #ro!p of 'C Consta(les" =TS3% Fe(" 1;% 1<<2 p" :FJ7Achanro(lesvirt!allawli(rary The petition is not impressed with merit" A party who invo,es the )!stifyin# circ!mstance of defense of stran#ers has the (!rden of provin# (y clear and convincin# evidence the e$c!lpatory ca!seN that wo!ld save him from conviction" +e m!st rely on the stren#th of his own evidence and not on the wea,ness of the evidence for the prosec!tion for even if the latterCs evidence is wea,% it cannot (e dis(elieved; and will not e$c!lpate the former from his cate#orical admission as the a!thor of the ,illin#" The Co!rt is convinced !pon scr!tiny of the evidence that petitioner failed to dischar#e this (!rden" Article 11 =:7 of the Revised 'enal Code provides: BJ!stifyin# Circ!mstance" The followin# do not inc!r any criminal lia(ility:

:" Anyone who acts in defense of the person or ri#hts of a stran#er% provided that the first and second re*!isites mentioned in the first circ!mstance of this article are present and that the person defendin# (e not ind!ced (y reven#e% resentment% or other evil motive B This circ!mstance of defense of stran#ers has three re*!isites: <chanro(lesvirt!allawli(rary =17 !nlawf!l a##ression8 =27 reasona(le necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it8 and =:7 the person defendin# (e not ind!ced (y reven#e% resentment% or other evil motive" The first and cr!cial re*!isite for defense of stran#ers to prosper is a(sent in this case" .nlawf!l a##ression pres!pposes an act!al% s!dden and !ne$pected attac, or imminent dan#er on the life or lim( of a person" 1D The mere coc,in# of the ?F 1J rifle (y the victim =C(l" Sala(ao7 witho!t aimin# the firearm at any partic!lar tar#et% is not s!fficient to concl!de that the life of the SiceFMovernor% +errera or even of Amora was in imminent dan#er" A threatenin# or intimidatin# attit!de per se does not constit!te !nlawf!l a##ression"11 /ven a mysterio!s whisper poses no dan#er" There is nothin# from the act of the victim in tryin# to stand !p% from which the Co!rt may infer that the life of the person =the Sice Movernor7 whom petitioner was alle#edly protectin#% was !nder act!al threat or attac, from the victim" &esides% ass!min# that s!ch act of the victim posed an imminent dan#er% petitioner was a(le to chec, if not ne!trali@e s!ch dan#er% when with a li#htnin# speed% he held and pointed downward the rifle of the former and sim!ltaneo!sly po,ed his"J cali(er at the victimCs head" ?oreover% when the victim fell down and sta##ered after petitioner shot him point(lan, in the head% any s!pposed !nlawf!l a##ression (y the former% ass!min# that it has (e#!n% had ceased" -f so% the one ma,in# the defense has no more ri#ht to ,ill or even wo!nd the former a##ressor" 12 Accordin#ly% petitionerCs contention that Bhe was forced to fire five more shots to defend the life of the SiceFMovernor (elon#s to the realm of fantasy" B1:chanro(lesvirt!allawli(rary ?oreover% the n!m(er% location and severity of the fatal wo!nds s!ffered (y the victim (elie the claim of defense of stran#er (!t is indicative of a determined effort to ,ill"1J The victim was hit on the vital parts of his (ody head% l!n#s% heart% chest and nec,"1 chanro(lesvirt!allawli(rary 0ith the a(sence of !nlawf!l a##ression that can (e attri(!ted to the victim% it (ecomes !nnecessary to determine the remainin# re*!isites for they o(vio!sly have no le# to stand on" Th!s% in this case% the defense of stran#er will not lie% complete or incomplete"1A 4n petitionerCs claim that he vol!ntarily s!rrendered% the evidence on record disclosed otherwise" ?ilitary men actin# on order of their s!perior officer were tas,ed to loo, for and apprehend petitioner" 0hen they spotted him% they s!rro!nded and capt!red petitioner" ?oreover% (efore he was capt!red% petitioner co!ld have easily s!rrendered to the Sice Movernor or to the police station which is a few (loc,s from his ho!se" Eet% the record is (ereft of any evidence that he made any effort to do so" The Co!rt does not also a#ree with petitionerCs claim that he is entitled to the miti#atin# circ!mstance of Bs!fficient provocation on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act"B 1N To avail of this (enefit% it m!st (e shown that the provocation ori#inated from the offended party% in this case% the victim" +owever% the records will attest that it was not the victim who provo,ed the heated confrontation (etween the SiceFMovernor and +errera% as he has nothin# to do with their disc!ssions" 3either was it shown that the victim provo,ed petitioner into committin# the felonio!s act" 'etitioner and the victim do not ,now each other% they never met (efore that incident% and the victim never aimed his rifle at petitioner" They merely sat (eside each other which co!ld hardly (e s!stained as a provocative act" ?oreover% any p!rported provocation (y the victim on Amora% when the former ref!sed to sal!te the latter o!tside the resta!rant% co!ld not (e considered as a provocation on petitioner since the latter was not even aware of the sal!tin# incident (etween the victim and Amora" Th!s% the (enefit of the miti#atin# circ!mstances !nder Article 1: =J7 of the Revised 'enal Code is !navaila(le to petitioner" At any rate% the errors assi#ned (y petitioner assail the fact!al findin#s and eval!ation of witnessCs credi(ility (y the trial co!rt" -t is a settled tenet% however% that the findin#s of fact of the trial co!rt is accorded not only with #reat wei#ht and respect on appeal (!t at times finality% especially when s!ch findin#s are affirmed (y the CA and provided it is s!pported (y s!(stantial evidence on record"1;.pon e$amination of the evidence in this case% the Co!rt is convinced that no si#nificant facts or circ!mstances were overloo,ed or disre#arded (y the co!rts (elow which if considered wo!ld warrant a reversal of the findin#s and vary the o!tcome hereof"1< 0ith respect to the iss!e of credi(ility of witnesses% the appreciation and assessment thereof is (est left to the trial co!rt )!d#e 2D havin# the !ni*!e opport!nity of o(servin# that el!sive and incomm!nica(le evidence of the witnessC deportment on the stand% a privile#e denied to the appellate co!rt .21 A#ain% there is

nothin# in the record that wo!ld indicate material inconsistencies or even impro(a(ilities in the testimony of prosec!tionCs witnesses" Since no ar(itrariness or any co#ent reasons were cited that wo!ld call for the reversal of the lower co!rtCs eval!ation of credi(ility of witness% s!ch eval!ations (ind this co!rt" 22chanro(lesvirt!allawli(rary ?8EREFORE% premises considered% the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals affirmin# the decision of the trial co!rt convictin# R!dy Almeda of homicide and sentencin# him to s!ffer an indeterminate penalty of ei#ht =;7 years and one = 1 7 day of prision mayor% as minim!m to fo!rteen =1J7 years% ei#ht =;7 months and one = 1 7 day of reclusion temporal, as ma$im!m and to pay the heirs of the victim 1eo Sala(ao% a total of 'AD% DDD"DD as indemnity and dama#es is here(y AFFIR=ED in toto. SO ORDERED" G.R. N2. L 7037 =(#+> 15, 1912 T8E UNITED STATES,plaintiffFappellee% vs" JOSE LAUREL, ET AL.,defendants Fappellants " !"rien and #e$itt for appellants. %ttorney&'eneral (illamor for appellee. TORRES,J.: This appeal was raised (y the fo!r a(oveFnamed defendants% from the )!d#ment of conviction% fo!nd on pa#e 11N of the record% rendered (y the +onora(le ?ariano C!i" The facts in this case are as follows: 4n the ni#ht of 2ecem(er 2A% 1<D<% while the #irl Concepcion 1at was wal,in# alon# the street% on her way from the ho!se of /$e*!iel Castillo% sit!ated in the p!e(lo of Tana!an% 'rovince of &atan#as% accompanied (y several yo!n# people% she was approached (y Jose 1a!rel who s!ddenly ,issed her and immediately thereafter ran off in the direction of his ho!se% p!rs!ed (y the #irlCs companions% amon# whom was the master of the ho!se a(ove mentioned% /$e*!iel Castillo8 (!t they did not overta,e him" 4n the second ni#ht after the occ!rrence )!st related% that is% on the 2;th% while /$e*!iel Castillo and Jose 1a!rel% to#ether with 2omin#o 'an#ani(an and several others of the defendants% were at an entertainment held on an !pper floor of the parochial (!ildin# of the said p!e(lo and attended (y many residents of the town% it is alle#ed that the said Castillo and 1a!rel were invited (y 'an#ani(an% the former thro!#h his (rother% Ro*!e Castillo% and the latter% directly% to come o!t into the yard% which they did% accompanied (y 'an#ani(an and the other defendants referred to" After the e$chan#e of a few words and e$planations concernin# the ,iss #iven the #irl 1at on the ni#ht of the 2Ath of that month% a *!arrel arose (etween the said Jose 1a!rel and /$e*!iel Castillo% in which 2omin#o 'an#ani(an% Sicente Marcia% and Conrado 1a!rel too, part% and as a res!lt of the *!arrel /$e*!iel Castillo was serio!sly wo!nded" +e s!cceeded in reachin# a dr!# store near (y where he received first aid treatment8 Jose 1a!rel also received two sli#ht wo!nds on the head" 2r" Si$to Ro)as% who (e#an to render medical assistance to /$e*!iel Castillo early in the mornin# of the followin# day% stated that his e$amination of the latterCs in)!ries disclosed a wo!nd in the left side of the chest% on a level with the fo!rth ri(% from : to J centimeters in depth% reachin# into the l!n#8 another wo!nd in the (ac, of the left arm and in the cond!it thro!#h which the !lnar nerve passes% from 1D to 11 centimeters in len#th% penetratin# to the (one and in)!rin# the nerves and arteries of the said re#ion% especially the !lnar nerve% which was served8 a cont!sion on the ri#ht temple% accompanied (y ecchymosis and hemorrha#e of the tiss!es of the eye8 and% finally% another cont!sion in the (ac, of the a(domen near the left cavity% which (y reaction in)!red the stomach and the ri#ht cavity" Accordin# to the opinion of the physician a(ove named% the wo!nd in the left side of the (reast was serio!s on acco!nt of its havin# f!lly penetrated the l!n#s and ca!sed the patient to spit (lood% as noticed the day after he was wo!nded% and there m!st have (een a hemmorha#e of the l!n#% an important vital vasc!lar or#an8 (y reason of this

hemorrha#e or #eneral infection the patient wo!ld have died% had it not (een for the timely medical aid rendered him" The wo!nd on the (ac, of the left arm was also of a serio!s nat!re% as the !lnar nerve was c!t% with the res!lt that the title and rin# fin#ers of the patientCs left hand have (een rendered permanently !seless" 0ith respect to the cont!sion on the ri#ht temple% it co!ld have (een serio!s% accordin# to the ,ind of (lows received% and the cont!sion on the (ac, of the a(domen was dia#nosed as serio!s also% on acco!nt of its havin# ca!sed an in)!ry as a res!lt of which the wo!nded man complained of severe pains in the stomach and left spleen" The said physician stated that he had attended the patient fo!rteen consec!tive days8 that the cont!sion on the a(domen was c!red in fo!r or five days% and that on the ri#ht temple in ten or twelve days% altho!#h this latter in)!ry was accompanied (y a considera(le ecchymosis which mi#ht not disappear for a(o!t three months% the time re*!ired for the a(sorption of the coa#!lated (lood8 that the stitches in the wo!nd of the left arm were ta,en o!t after twelve days% and when witness ceased to attendthe patient% this wo!nd was healin# !p and for its complete c!re wo!ld re*!ire ei#ht or more daysC time8and that the wo!nd in the (reast% for the reason that it had already healed internally and the dan#er ofinfection had disappeared% was healin#% altho!#h still more time wo!ld (e re*!ired for its complete c!re%the patient (ein# a(le to contin!e the treatment himself% which in fact he did" -n view of the stri,in#ly contradictory evidence add!ced (y the prosec!tion and (y the defense% and in order to decide what were the tr!e facts of the case we shall proceed to recite the testimony of the party who was serio!sly wo!nded and of his witnesses% and afterwards% that of his alle#ed assailants and of their witnesses% in order to determine the nat!re of the crime% the circ!mstances that conc!rred therein and% in t!rn% the responsi(ility of the criminal or criminals" /$e*!iel Castillo testified that while he% to#ether with 'rimitivo Mon@ale@% was in the hall of the parochial (!ildin# of Tana!an% attendin# an entertainment on the ni#ht of 2ecem(er 2;% 1<D<% he was approached (y his (rother% Ro*!e Castillo% who told him% on the part of 2omin#o 'an#ani(an% that Jose 1a!rel desired to spea, with him and was awaitin# him on the #ro!nd floor of the said (!ildin#% to #ive him an e$planation with re#ard to his =1a!relCs7 havin# ,issed Concepcion 1at on the ni#ht of the 2Ath in the street and in the presence of the witness and other yo!n# people8 that the witness% /$e*!iel Castillo% therefore% left the parochial (!ildin#% accompanied (y his (rother Ro*!e and 'rimitivo Mon@ale@% and met Sofronio Selasco% Ma!dencio Marcia% and Alfonso Torres% at the street door8 that after he had waited there for half an ho!r% Jose la!rel% Conrado 1a!rel% Sicente Marcia% Jose Marcia% and 2omin#o 'an#ani(an% li,ewise came down o!t of the (!ildin# and Jose 1a!rel approached him and immediately too, him aside% away from the door of the (!ildin# and the others8 that 1a!rel then said to him that% (efore ma,in# any e$planations relative to the said offense a#ainst the #irl Concepcion 1at% he wo!ld as, him whether it was tr!e that he =the witness% Castillo7 had in his possession some letters addressed (y 1a!rel to the said #irl% to which the witness replied that as a #entleman he was not o(li#ed to answer the *!estion8 that there!pon Jose 1a!rel s!ddenly str!c, him a (low in the left side of the (reast with a ,nife% where!pon the witness% feelin# that he was wo!nded% str!c, in t!rn with the cane he was carryin# at his assailant% who dod#ed and immediately started to r!n8 there!pon witness received another ,nife thr!st in the left arm followed (y a (low in the left side from a fist and witness% !pon t!rnin#% saw Sicente Marcia and 2omin#o 'an#ani(an in the act of a#ain assa!ltin# him8 )!st then he was str!c, a (low with a cane on his ri#ht temple and% on t!rnin#% saw (ehind him Conrado 1a!rel carryin# a stic,% and )!st at the moment 'rimitivo Mon@ale@ and several policemen approached him callin# of peace8 his assailants then left him and witness went to the nei#h(orin# dr!# store where he received first aid treatment" 0itness f!rther testified that he had (een co!rtin# the #irl Concepcion 1at for a month8 that% (eca!se his sweetheart had (een ,issed (y Jose 1a!rel%

he felt a little resentment a#ainst the latter% and that since then he had no opport!nity to spea, with his assailant !ntil the said ni#ht of the attac," Ro*!e Castillo% a witness for the prosec!tion% testified that% at the re*!est of 2omin#o 'an#ani(an% he had s!##ested to his (rother% /$e*!iel Castillo% that the latter sho!ld #o down to the door of the #ro!nd floor of the parochial (!ildin#% where Jose 1a!rel was waitin# for him% so that the latter mi#ht ma,e e$planations to him with re#ard to what had ta,en place on the ni#ht prior to the 2Ath of 2ecem(er8 that /$e*!iel% who was in the hall (eside 'rimitivo Mon@ale@% immediately !pon receivin# the notice sent him in 1a!relCs name% #ot !p and went down with Mon@ale@ and the witness% tho!#h the latter remained at the foot of the stairs in conversation with Sir#inio de Silla% whom he fo!nd there8 that% after a little while% witness saw Jose 1a!rel% Jose Marcia% 2omin#o 'an#ani(an% Sicente Marcia% and Conrado 1a!rel come down from the said (!ildin#% and% on o(servin# somethin# (!l#in# from the (ac, of the latterCs waist he as,ed him what made that (!l#e% to which 1a!rel replied that it meant Bpeace8B witness there!pon said to him that if he really desired Bpeace%B as witness also did% he mi#ht deliver to the latter the revolver he was carryin#% and to prove that he wo!ld not ma,e (ad !se of the weapon% 1a!rel mi#ht ta,e the cartrid#es o!t and deliver the revolver to witness" This he did% the witness received the revolver witho!t the cartrid#es% and his fears th!s allayed% the witness ret!rned to the !pper floor to the entertainment8 (!t that% at the end of a(o!t half an ho!r% he heard a h!((!( amon# the people who said that there was a *!arrel% and witness% s!spectin# that his (rother /$e*!iel had met with some treachery% ran down o!t of the ho!se8 on reachin# the #ro!nd floor he met 'rimitivo Mon@ale@% who had (lood stains on his arms8 that Mon@ale@ then informed him that /$e*!iel was (adly wo!nded8 that he fo!nd his said (rother in Arsenio Mon@ale@C dr!# store8 and that his (rother was no lon#er a(le to spea, (!t made ,nown that he wanted to (e shriven" 0itness added that on that same ni#ht he delivered the revolver to his father% Si$to Castillo% who corro(orated this statement" The other witness% 'rimitivo Mon@ale@% corro(orated the testimony #iven (y the precedin# witness% Ro*!e Castillo% and testified that% while he was that ni#ht attendin# the entertainment at the parochial (!ildin# of Tana!an% in company with /$e*!iel Castillo% the latter received notice from his =CastilloCs7 (rother% thro!#h 2omin#o 'an#ani(an% to the effect that Jose 1a!rel desired to spea, with him concernin# what occ!rred on the ni#ht of 2ecem(er 2A8 that there!pon /$e*!iel% the latterCs (rother% Ro*!e and the witness all went down o!t of the ho!se% tho!#h Ro*!e stopped on the main stairway while witness and /$e*!iel went on !ntil they came to the main door of the #ro!nd floor where they met Alfonso Torres and Ma!dencio Marcia8 that% after a while% Jose 1a!rel% Conrado 1a!rel% Sicente Marcia% Jose Marcia A*!ino% and 2omin#o 'an#ani(an came !p8 that when Jose 1a!rel met /$e*!iel Castillo he ca!#ht the latter (y the hand and the two separated themselves from the rest and retired to a certain distance% altho!#h Sicente and Jose Marcia% Conrado 1a!rel% and Alfonso Torres placed themselves the nearest to the first two% Jose 1a!rel and /$e*!iel Castillo8 that at this )!nct!re witness% who was a(o!t A or N meters away from the two men last named% o(served that Jose 1a!rel% who had his hand in his poc,et while he was tal,in# with /$e*!iel% immediately drew o!t a hand,erchief and therewith str!c, /$e*!iel a (low on the (reast8 that the latter forthwith hit his assailant% 1a!rel% with a cane which he was carryin#8 that 1a!rel% !pon receivin# a (low% stepped (ac,% while /$e*!iel p!rs!ed him and contin!ed to stri,e him8 that there!pon Sicente Marcia sta((ed /$e*!iel% who had his (ac, t!rned toward him and Conrado 1a!rel str!c, the said /$e*!iel a (low on the head with a cane8 that when witness approached the spot where the fi#ht was #oin# on% several policemen appeared there and called o!t for peace8 and that he did not notice what Jose Marcia A*!ino and Alfonso Torres did"

1!cio Silla% a policeman% testified that on the hearin# the commotion% he went to the scene of it and met Jose 1a!rel who was comin# away% wal,in# at an ordinary #ait and carryin# a (loody poc,et,nife in his hand8 that witness therefore arrested him% too, the weapon from him and cond!cted him to the m!nicipal (!ildin#8 and that the ser#eant and another policemen% the latter (ein# the witnessCs companion% too, char#e of the other dist!r(ers" The defendant% Jose 1a!rel% testified that early in the evenin# of the 2;th of 2ecem(er he went to the parochial (!ildin#% in company with 2iosdado Siansance and several yo!n# people% amon# them his co!sin &alta@ara Rocamora% for the p!rpose of attendin# an entertainment which was to (e held there8 that% while sittin# in the front row of chairs% for there were as yet (!t few people% and while the director of the colle#e was deliverin# a disco!rse% he was approached (y 2omin#o 'an#ani(an who told him that /$e*!iel Castillo wished to spea, with him% to which witness replied that he sho!ld wait a while and 'an#ani(an there!pon went away8 that% a short time afterwards% he was also approached (y Alfredo Eatco who #ave him a similar messa#e% and soon afterwards Felipe Almeda came !p and told him that /$e*!iel Castillo was waitin# for him on the #ro!nd floor of the ho!se8 this (ein# the third s!mmons addressed to him% he arose and went down to ascertain what the said /$e*!iel wanted8 that% when he stepped o!tside of the street door% he saw several persons there% amon# them% /$e*!iel Castillo8 the latter% !pon seein# witness% s!##ested that they separate from the rest and tal, in a place a short distance away8 that there!pon /$e*!iel as,ed witness why he ,issed his% /$e*!ielCs sweetheart% and on 1a!relCs replyin# that he had done so (eca!se she was very fic,le and prodi#al of her !se of the word ByesB on all occasions% /$e*!iel said to him that he o!#ht not to act that way and immediately str!c, him a (low on the head with a cane or cl!(% which assa!lt made witness di@@y and ca!sed him to fall to the #ro!nd in a sittin# post!re8 that% as witness feared that his a##ressor wo!ld contin!e to assa!lt him% he too, hold of the poc,et,nife which he was carryin# in his poc,et and therewith defended himself8 that he did not ,now whether he wo!nded /$e*!iel with the said weapon% for% when witness arose% he noticed that he% the latter% had a wo!nd in the ri#ht parietal re#ion and a cont!sion in the left8 that witness was there!pon arrested (y the policemen% 1!cio Silla% and was !na(le to state whether he dropped the poc,et,nife he carried or whether it was pic,ed !p (y the said officer8 that it too, more than a wee, to c!re his in)!ries8 that he had (een co!rtin# the #irl Concepcion 1at for a year% (!t that in 4cto(er% 1<D<% his co!rtship ended and /$e*!iel Castillo then (e#an to co!rt her8 and that% as witness (elieved that the said #irl wo!ld not marry him% nor /$e*!iel% he ,issed her in the street% on the ni#ht of 2ecem(er 2A% 1<D<% and immediately thereafter ran toward his ho!se" &alta@ara Rocamora stated that% while she was with Jose 1a!rel on the ni#ht of 2ecem(er 2;% 1<D<% attendin# an entertainment in the parochial (!ildin# of Tana!an% the latter was s!ccessively called (y 2omin#o 'an#ani(an% Alfredo Eatco% and Felipe Almeda% the last named sayin#: BMo alon#% old fellow8 yo! are friends now"B Casimiro Tapia testified that% on the mornin# followin# the alle#ed crime% he visited Jose 1a!rel in the )ail% and fo!nd him s!fferin# from the (r!ises or cont!sions8 that to c!re them% he #ave him one application of tinct!re of arnica to apply to his in)!ries% which were not serio!s"

his poc,et" -n view% therefore% of these manifest contradictions% and in order to determine the lia(ility of the defendant% Jose 1a!rel% who% it is proved% inflicted the serio!s wo!nd on /$e*!iel Castillo% it is necessary to decide which of the two was the assailant"

Ta,in# for #ranted that Jose 1a!rel did act!ally ,iss Concepcion 1at in the street and in the presence of /$e*!iel Castillo% the #irlCs s!itor% and of others who were accompanyin# her% the first *!ery that nat!rally arises in the e$amination of the evidence and the circ!mstances connected with the occ!rrence% is: 0ho provo,ed the enco!nter (etween 1a!rel and Castillo% and the interview (etween the same% and who invited the other% on the ni#ht of 2ecem(er 2;% 1<D<% to come down from the parochial (!ildin# of Tana!an% to the lower floor and o!tside the entrance of the sameO /ven on this concrete point the evidence is contradictory% for% while the witnesses of /$e*!iel Castillo swore that the latter was invited (y Jose 1a!rel% those of the latter testified% in t!rn% that 1a!rel was invited three consec!tive times (y three different messen#ers in the name and on the part of the said Castillo" -n the presence of this mar,ed contradiction% and (ein# compelled to in*!ire into the tr!th of the matter% we are forced to thin, that the person who wo!ld consider himself a##rieved at the ,iss #iven the #irl Concepcion 1at% in the street and in the presence of several witnesses% wo!ld !ndo!(tedly (e /$e*!iel Castillo% the s!itor of the #irl% and it wo!ld appear to (e a reasona(le concl!sion that he himself% hi#hly offended at the (oldness of Jose 1a!rel% was the person who wished to demand e$planation of the offense" .pon this premise% and havin# wei#hed and considered as a whole the testimony% circ!mstantial evidence% and other merits of the present case% the conviction is ac*!ired% (y the force of pro(a(ility% that the invitation% #iven thro!#h the medi!m of several individ!als% came from the man who was offended (y the incident of the ,iss% and that it was the perpetrator of the offense who was invited to come down from the parochial (!ildin# to the #ro!nd floor thereof to ma,e e$planations re#ardin# the ins!lt to the #irl 1at% the real s!itor of whom was at the time the said /$e*!iel Castillo" All this is not mere con)ect!re8 it is lo#ically derived from the a(ove related facts" &oth Jose and /$e*!iel were attendin# the entertainment that ni#ht in the !pper story of the parochial (!ildin#" /$e*!iel was the first who went (elow% with his co!sin% 'rimitivo Mon@ale@% ,nowin# the 1a!rel remained in the hall a(ove% and he it was who waited for nearly half an ho!r on the #ro!nd floor of the said (!ildin# for the said Jose 1a!rel to come down" The latter was notified three times% and s!ccessively% in the name and on the part of /$e*!iel Castillo% first (y 2omin#o 'an#ani(an% then (y Alfredo Eatco and finally (y Felipe AlmedaFFthree s!mmonses which were necessary (efore Jose 1a!rel co!ld (e ind!ced% after the lapse of nearly half an ho!r% to come down" ?eanwhile% for that space of time% /$e*!iel Castillo was awaitin# him% !ndo!(tedly for the p!rpose of demandin# e$planations concernin# the offensive act committed a#ainst his sweetheart" The nat!ral co!rse and the ri#oro!s lo#ic of the facts can not (e ar(itrarily (e re)ected% !nless it (e shown that other entirely anomalo!s facts occ!rred" -f% in the nat!ral order of thin#s% the person who was deeply offended (y the ins!lt was the one who (elieved he had a ri#ht to demand e$planations of the perpetrator of that ins!lt% it is *!ite pro(a(le that the a##rieved party was the one who% thro!#h the instr!mentality of several persons% invited the ins!lter to come down from the !pper story of the parochial (!ildin#% where he was% and ma,e the e$planations which he (elieved he had a ri#ht to e$act8 and if this (e so% /$e*!iel Castillo% serio!sly affected and offended (y the ins!lt to his sweetheart% Concepcion 1at% m!st (e held to (e the one who (ro!#ht a(o!t the enco!nter #ave the invitation and provo,ed the occ!rrence% as shown (y his cond!ct in immediately #oin# down to the entrance door of the said (!ildin# and in resi#nedly waitin#% for half an ho!r% for Jose 1a!rel to come down" ?oreover% if the latter had provo,ed the enco!nter or interview had on the #ro!nd floor of the (!ildin#% it is not !nderstood why he delayed in #oin# down% nor why it (ecame necessary to call him three times% in

s!ch manner that /$e*!iel Castillo had to wait for him (elow for half an ho!r% when it is nat!ral and lo#ical to s!ppose that the provo,in# party or the one interested in receivin# e$planations wo!ld (e precisely the one who wo!ld have hastened to (e in waitin# at the place of the appointment8 he wo!ld not have (een slow or indisposed to #o down% as was the case with Jose 1a!rel" -f% as is tr!e% the latter was the one who ins!lted the #irl Concepcion 1at P an ins!lt which m!st deeply have affected the mind of /$e*!iel Castillo% the #irlCs s!itor at the time P it is not possi(le to conceive% as claimed (y the prosec!tion% how and why it sho!ld (e Jose 1a!rel who sho!ld see, e$planations from /$e*!iel Castillo" -t was nat!ral and m!ch more li,ely that it sho!ld have (een the latter who had an interest in demandin# e$planations from the man who ins!lted his sweetheart" -n view of the (ehavior of the men a few moments (efore the occ!rrence% we are of the opinion that Castillo was the first to #o down to the entrance door of the parochial (!ildin#% ,nowin# that Jose 1a!rel was in the hall% and% notwithstandin# the state of his mind% he had the patience to wait for the said 1a!rel who% it appears% was very rel!ctant to #o down and it was necessary to call him three times (efore he finally did so% at the end of half an ho!r" After considerin# these occ!rrences which too, place (efore the crime% the *!ery of co!rse arises as to which of the two was the first to assa!lt the other% for each lays the (lame !pon his opponent for the commencement of the assa!lt" /$e*!iel Castillo testified that after he had replied to Jose 1a!rel that he% the witness% was not o(li#ed to say whether he had in his possession several letters addressed (y la!rel to the #irl Concepcion 1at% 1a!rel immediately sta((ed him in the (reast with a ,nife8 while Jose 1a!rel swore that% !pon his answerin# the *!estion p!t to him (y Castillo as to why the witness had ,issed his sweetheart% sayin# that it was (eca!se she was very fic,le and prodi#al of the word ByesB on all occasions% /$e*!iel said to him in reply that he o!#ht not to act in that manner% and immediately str!c, him a co!ple of (lows on the head with a cl!(% wherefore% in order to defend himself% he drew the ,nife he was carryin# in his poc,et" 0ere the statements made (y /$e*!iel Castillo satisfactorily proven at the trial% it is !n*!estiona(le that Jose 1a!rel wo!ld (e lia(le as the a!thor of the p!nisha(le act !nder prosec!tion8 (!t% in view of the antecedents aforerelated% the concl!sions reached from the evidence% and the other merits of the case% the concl!sion is certain that the assa!lt was commenced (y /$e*!iel Castillo% who str!c, Jose 1a!rel two (lows with a cane% sli#htly in)!rin# him in two places on the head% and the assa!lted man% in selfFdefense% wo!nded his assailant with a poc,et,nife8 therefore% Jose 1a!rel committed no crime and is e$empt from all responsi(ility% as the infliction of the wo!nds attended (y the three re*!isites specified in para#raph J% article ; of the 'enal Code" From the evidence% then% prod!ced at the trial% it is concl!ded that it was /$e*!iel Castillo who% thro!#h the mediation of several others% invited 1a!rel to come down from the !pper story of the parochial (!ildin#% and that it was he% therefore% who provo,ed the affray aforementioned% and% also% it was he who !nlawf!lly assa!lted Jose 1a!rel% (y stri,in# the latter two (lows with a cane inasm!ch as it is not li,ely that after havin# received a dan#ero!s wo!nd in the left (reast% he wo!ld have (een a(le to stri,e his alle#ed assailant two s!ccessive (lows and m!ch less p!rs!e him" -t is very pro(a(le that he received the said wo!nds after he had assa!lted Jose 1a!rel with the cane% and 1a!rel% on his part% in defendin# himself from the assa!lt% employed rational means (y !sin# the ,nife that he carried in his poc,et" For all the fore#oin# reasons% Jose 1a!rel m!st (e ac*!itted and held to (e e$empt from responsi(ility onthe #ro!nd of selfF defense" The case falls within para#raph J of article ; of the 'enal Code% inasm!ch asthe defensive act e$ec!ted (y him

was attended (y the three re*!isites of ille#al a##ression on the part of/$e*!iel Castillo% there (ein# a lac, of s!fficient provocation on the part of 1a!rel% who% as we have said%did not provo,e the occ!rrence complained of% nor did he direct that /$e*!iel Castillo (e invited to comedown from the parochial (!ildin# and arran#e the interview in which Castillo alone was interested% and%finally% (eca!se 1a!rel% in defendin# himself with a poc,et,nife a#ainst the assa!lt made !pon him with acane% which may also (e a deadly weapon% employed reasona(le means to prevent or repel the same" .nder the fore#oin# reasonin#% the other acc!sed% Conrado 1a!rel and Sicente Marcia% who li,ewise% wereconvicted as principals of the crime !nder prosec!tion% are comprised within the provisions of para#raph of the said article ; of the 'enal Code% which are as follows: +e who acts in defense of the person or ri#hts of his spo!se% ascendants% descendants% or le#itimate% nat!ral% or adopted (rothers or sisters% or of his relatives (y affinity in the same de#rees and those (y consan#!inity within the fo!rth civil de#ree% provided the first and second circ!mstances mentioned in the fore#oin# n!m(er are attendant% and provided that in case the party attac,ed first #ave provocation% the defender too, no part therein" Conrado 1a!rel and Sicente Marcia% first co!sins of Jose 1a!rel% as shown in the trial record to have (een proven witho!t contradiction whatsoever% did not provo,e the tro!(le% nor did they ta,e any part in the invitation e$tended to Jose 1a!rel in the name of and for /$e*!iel Castillo8 in assistin# in the fi#ht (etween Castillo and 1a!rel% they acted in defense of their co!sin% Jose 1a!rel% when they saw that the latter was assa!lted% twice str!c, and even p!rs!ed (y the assailant% Castillo8 conse*!ently Conrado 1a!rel and Sicente Marcia have not trans#ressed the law and they are e$empt from all responsi(ility% for all the re*!isites of para#raph J of the aforecited article attended the acts performed (y them% as there was ille#al a##ression on the part of the wo!nded man% /$e*!iel Castillo% reasona(le necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the said a##ression on the part of the aforementioned Conrado 1a!rel and Sicente Marcia% who acted in defense of their co!sin% Jose 1a!rel% ille#ally assa!lted (y /$e*!iel Castillo% neither of the said codefendants havin# provo,ed the alle#ed crime" 0ith re#ard to 2omin#o 'an#ani(an% the only act of which he was acc!sed (y the wo!nded man% /$e*!iel Castillo% was that he str!c, the latter a (low on the left side with his fist% while Castillo was p!rs!in# 1a!rel" 2omin#o 'an#ani(an denied that he too, part in the *!arrel and stated that he ,ept at a distance from the com(atants% !ntil he was arrested (y a policeman" +is testimony appears to (e corro(orated (y that of 'rimitivo Mon@ale@% a witness for the prosec!tion and relative of /$e*!iel Castillo% for Mon@ale@ positively declared that 'an#ani(an was (eside him d!rin# the occ!rrence of the fi#ht and when the others s!rro!nded the said /$e*!iel Castillo8 it is% therefore% neither pro(a(le nor possi(le that 'an#ani(an en#a#ed in the affray% and so he contracted no responsi(ility whatever" /$e*!iel CastilloCs wo!nds were very serio!s% (!t% in view of the fact that concl!sive proof was add!ced at the trial% of the attendance of the re*!isites prescri(ed in 3os" J and of article ; of the 'enal Code% in favor of those who inflicted the said wo!nds% it is proper to apply to this case the provision contained in the ne$t to the last para#raph of r!le 1 of the provisional law for the application of the said code" 0ith respect to the classification of the crime we (elieve that there is no need for !s to concern o!rselves therewith in this decision% in view of the findin#s of fact and of law made (y the co!rt (elow !pon the *!estion of the lia(ility of the defendants" &y reason% therefore% of all the fore#oin#% we are of opinion that% with a reversal of the )!d#ment appealedfrom% we sho!ld ac*!it% as we do here(y% the defendants Jose 1a!rel% Sicente Marcia% Conrado 1a!rel% and2omin#o 'an#ani(an" They have

committed no crime% and we e$empt them from all responsi(ility" Thecosts of (oth instances shall (e de oficio% and the (ond #iven in (ehalf of the defendants shall immediately(e canceled" 9G.R. N2$. 135239 ;0. A%-%$) 12, 2002: PEOPLE OF T8E P8ILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO ATADERO, FLORENCIO ATADERO, (/, RAUL 8UDIT (() 4(#-"), accused, ROLANDO ATADERO (/, FLORENCIO ATADERO, accused-appellants. DECISION PUNO, J.* -n the afternoon of Jan!ary 21% 1<<D% a violent fi#ht er!pted (etween two #ro!ps of men at &aran#ay Sista Ale#re% &acolod City" 4ne #ro!p was composed of Florencio Atadero% Rolando Atadero and Ra!l +!dit% while the other #ro!p was composed of /d#ardo ?eniel% Ronelo ?eniel and Rolando Solinap" The (rawl res!lted in the death of /d#ardo ?eniel and the wo!ndin# of his (rother% Ronelo ?eniel" Florencio and Rolando Atadero% to#ether with Ra!l +!dit% were )ointly char#ed (efore the Re#ional Trial Co!rt of &acolod City with the crimes of ?!rder and Attempted ?!rder in the followin# informations: C#0.0/(4 C($" N2. 8907 That on or a(o!t the )1st day of Jan!ary% 1<<D% in the City of &acolod% 'hilippines% and within the )!risdiction of this +onora(le Co!rt% the herein acc!sed% conspirin#% confederatin# and actin# in concert% witho!t any )!stifia(le ca!se or motive% (ein# then armed with a (olo% (!tchers ,nife% stainless ,nife and cha,o% with intent to ,ill and (y means of treachery and with evident premeditation% did% then and there wilf!lly% !nlawf!lly and felonio!sly attac,% assa!lt% hac, and sta( with said weapons one Ronelo F" ?eniel% there(y ca!sin# !pon the person of the latter the followin# wo!nds% to wit: F 1acerated wo!nd cm lon#% left thi#h middle third lateral aspect"

F 1acerated wo!nd : cm lon#% left thi#h middle third anterior aspect" F 1acerated wo!nd J cm lon#% left inde$ fin#er" F 1acerated wo!nd 2 cm lon#% left hand% middle fin#er" F 1acerated wo!nd 1 cm lon#% left hand rin# fin#er" F 1acerated wo!nd% D" cm lon#% left hand small fin#er" Th!s commencin# the commission of a felony directly (y overt acts% (!t did not perform all the acts of e$ec!tion which wo!ld have prod!ced the crime of m!rder (y reason of some ca!se or accident other than the acc!seds own spontaneo!s desistance" Act contrary to law"91 C#0.0/(4 C($" N2. 8905 That on or a(o!t the 21st day of Jan!ary 1<<D% in the City of &acolod% 'hilippines% and within the )!risdiction of this +onora(le Co!rt% the herein acc!sed% conspirin#% confederatin# and actin# in concert% witho!t any )!stifia(le ca!se or motive% (ein# then armed with a (olo% (!tchers ,nife% stainless ,nife and cha,o% with intent to ,ill and (y means of treachery and with evident premeditation% did% then and there wilf!lly% !nlawf!lly and felonio!sly attac,% assa!lt% hac, and sta( with said weapons one /d#ardo '" ?eniel% there(y ca!sin# !pon the person of the latter the followin# wo!nds% to wit: 1" A(rasion with cont!sion% 1" cm" in area% lower eye(row% ri#ht% nasal aspect"

2" 0o!nd% incised% J"D cm" in len#th% involvin# an#le of mid lips% left to preFa!ric!lar re#ion% left" :" 0o!nd% sta((ed% :"D cm" in len#th% chest% anterior% level of the :rd inter costal space% 2"D cm" from left midF sternal line% medial e$tremity cont!sed and lateral e$tremity sharp% to enter thoracic cavity% laceratin# s!perior lo(e of left l!n#" J" 0o!nd% sta((ed% :"2 cm" in len#th% chest% anterior% level of the th intercostal space% alon# midFsternal line% lateral e$tremity cont!sed and medial e$tremity sharp% fract!rin# stern!m% to enter thoracic cavity% laceratin# lower lo(e of ri#ht l!n#" . 0o!nd% sta((ed% 2" cm" in len#th% chest% anterior% level of the th interFcostal space% ;"D cm" from left midF sternal line% medial e$tremity cont!sed% and lateral e$tremity sharp to enter thoracic cavity% perforatin# ventricle of the heart" A" 0o!nd% sta((ed% :"1 cm" in len#th% hypochondriac re#ion% 1D"D cm" from left midFsternal line% =0ith omental prolapse7% s!perior e$tremity cont!sed and inferior e$tremity sharp% laceratin# left half of the diaphra#m% laceratin# inferior lo(e of left l!n#" N" 0o!nd% incised% 2"D cm" in len#th% th!m(% left% middle third% anterior aspect" ;" 0o!nd% incised% J"D cm" in len#th% iliac re#ion% alon# left posterior a$illary line" <. 0o!nd% hac,ed% "D cm" in len#th% el(ow% left% fract!rin# (one thereat" CA.S/ 4F 2/AT+: S+4CK A32 +/?4RR+AM/ 2./ 9T4> STA&&/2 A32 +ACK/2 04.32S" 0hich directly ca!sed the death of the said victim /d#ardo '" ?eniel to the dama#e and pre)!dice of his heirs% as follows: 1" As indemnity for the death of the victim "" ':D%DDD"DD 2" As indemnity for the loss of earnin# capacity '122%JDD"DD :" As moral dama#es" ' 1D%DDD"DD Act contrary to law"92 The trial co!rt iss!ed a warrant of arrest a#ainst the three acc!sed on J!ly :% 1<<D (!t the same was ret!rned !nserved as the acc!sed were fo!nd to (e residin# in ?indanao" 9: 4n 4cto(er 1;% 1<<J% elements of the 'olice Criminal -nvesti#ation .nit F Criminal -nvesti#ation Command ='C-.FC-C7% 'hilippine 3ational 'olice arrested Rolando Atadero at 3issan Silla#e% ?arcos +i#hway% Cainta% Ri@al" Florencio Atadero% meanwhile% vol!ntarily s!rrendered to 'HS!pt" ?ario R" Sandie#o% Chief of 'C-.FC-C% at the 'C-.FC-C head*!arters at Camp Crame in 5!e@on City" 9J Ra!l +!dit has remained at lar#e" Rolando and Florencio Atadero were arrai#ned on Jan!ary % 1<< " They pleaded not #!ilty to (oth char#es" 9 4n A!#!st 2N% 1<<N% after )oint trial on the merits% the trial co!rt rendered a decision findin# Rolando Atadero and Florencio Atadero #!ilty of m!rder in Criminal Case 3o" ;<D % and Rolando Atadero #!ilty of attempted homicide in Criminal Case 3o" ;<DN" The trial co!rt held that after the confrontation (etween /d#ardo ?eniel and Florencio Atadero at &an##a &ode#a% the three acc!sed conspired to await the arrival of the ?eniels at Sista Ale#re and attac, them with their weapons" The trial co!rt f!rther fo!nd the ,illin# of /d#ardo ?eniel to (e attended (y the a##ravatin# circ!mstance of treachery as he was first attac,ed (y Rolando Atadero while he was still on (oard the tricycle which restrained his movement and prevented him from defendin# himself" After he fled% the three acc!sed chased him and inflicted vario!s in)!ries on his (ody even as he lay wo!nded and helpless" -n Criminal Case 3o" ;<DN% only Rolando Atadero% who assa!lted Ronelo ?eniel% was fo!nd criminally lia(le as it has not (een esta(lished that the conspiracy incl!ded the infliction of (odily harm a#ainst Ronelo ?eniel" The trial co!rt fo!nd him #!ilty only of attempted homicide since no a##ravatin# circ!mstance attended the commission of the offense" 9A The dispositive portion of the decision states: 0+/R/F4R/% premises considered% R41A324 ATA2/R4 and F14R/3C-4 ATA2/R4 are here(y fo!nd #!ilty for the m!rder of /d#ardo ?eniel% in Criminal Case 3o" ;<D % and accordin#ly sentenced to s!ffer the penalty of R/C1.S-43

'/R'/T.A" &oth are ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the amo!nt of ' D%DDD"DD8 'N %DDD"DD for loss of earnin#s% and '1D%DDD"DD for moral dama#es" -n Criminal Case 3o" ;<DN% Rolando Atadero is here(y fo!nd #!ilty (eyond reasona(le do!(t of the crime of Attempted +omicide" Florencio Atadero is AC5.-TT/2" 3o a##ravatin# or miti#atin# circ!mstances attended the commission of the crime% and therefore the penalty shall (e imposed in its medi!m period" Accordin#ly% R41A324 ATA2/R4 is here(y sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of S-6 =A7 months of ARR/ST4 ?AE4R as minim!m% to F4.R =J7 years and 43/ =17 day of 'R-S-43 C4RR/CC-43A1 as ma$im!m" +e is also ordered to pay Ronelo ?eniel% '1%DDD"DD for hospital and medical e$penses and ':%DDD"DD for loss of earnin#s and costs" S4 4R2/R/2"9N Rolando Atadero and Florencio Atadero now appeal from the decision of the trial co!rt" -n their appellants (rief% (oth Rolando and Florencio essentially contend that the trial co!rt erred in its assessment of the evidence presented (y the parties" 9; 0e now review the parties evidence" The prosec!tion presented the testimonies of several witnesses and the a!topsy report on the (ody of the victim in Criminal Case 3o" ;<D % /d#ardo ?eniel% 9< as well as the medical certificate iss!ed (y 2r" Rodolfo &" /scalona% ?edicoF1e#al 4fficer at the Cora@on 1ocsin ?onteli(ano ?emorial Re#ional +ospital% showin# the in)!ries s!stained (y Ronelo ?eniel as a res!lt of the incident% in connection with Criminal Case 3o" ;<DN" 91D The first witness for the prosec!tion was Rolando Solinap% a resident of +acienda Canomayan% &aran#ay Sista Ale#re% &acolod City% who was with /d#ardo and Ronelo ?eniel at the time they #ot involved in the affray" +e stated that in the afternoon of Jan!ary 21% 1<<D% he% Ronelo and /d#ardo were on their way home from 1i(ertad ?ar,et" They passed (y &an##a &ode#a where they saw Florencio Atadero and Ra!l +!dit" /d#ardo confronted Florencio as the latter had alle#edly ma!led him a year a#o d!rin# the town fiesta" Solinap mediated (etween the two (y remindin# them that they live in the same (aran#ay and that their fathers are compadres. +eedin# Solinaps advice% the two shoo, hands and /d#ardo allowed Florencio to #o" After Florencio and Ra!l left% Solinap and the ?eniel (rothers% to#ether with two others% (oarded a tricycle to Sista Ale#re" 0hen they reached Sista Ale#re% a woman passen#er as,ed to (e ali#hted" Solinap stepped down from the tricycle to allow the woman to pass" Solinap saw Florencio% his (rother% Rolando Atadero% and Ra!l% all armed% r!nnin# toward them" Rolando Atadero held a cha*o and a (!tchers ,nife" Florencio had a (olo and a stainless ,nife" Ra!l was armed with a scythe and a stainless ,nife" Rolando Atadero thr!st his ,nife at /d#ardo who was seated inside the tricycle" /d#ardo was sta((ed at the side" /d#ardo (e##ed for help" Solinap tried to p!sh Rolando Atadero (!t the latter t!rned to him and sta((ed him on his ri#ht (reast" Florencio also tried to hac, Solinap with his (olo% hittin# him on the left ,nee" Florencio tried to hac, him a#ain% (!t Solinap thwarted the (low (y #ra((in# the (olo" Solinap c!t his middle fin#er in the str!##le" 0hen the (olo fell to the #ro!nd% Solinap tried to #et hold of it% (!t he was a#ain hac,ed (y Rolando Atadero" +e was hit on his ri#ht instep% near his ri#ht an,le" As onloo,ers #athered aro!nd them% a certain &ondyin#% (rotherFinFlaw of the Ataderos% tried to restrain and pacify the warrin# parties" At that moment% Ronelo si#nalled Solinap to r!n for safety" Ronelo and Solinap tried to r!n% (!t when Ronelo saw that Solinap was wo!nded% he told him to #o (ac, instead and #et a tricycle" Solinap hailed a tricycle and as,ed the driver to (rin# them to Cora@on 1ocsin ?onteli(ano ?emorial +ospital where he was treated for his wo!nds" 911 Solinap later learned that /d#ardo ?eniel had died" 912 Accordin# to the prosec!tion% the attac, was witnessed (y Rolando Ronamo% also a resident of Sista Ale#re% &acolod City" +e stated on the witness stand that on Jan!ary 21% 1<<D% aro!nd ::D in the afternoon% he was at Sista Ale#re waitin# for a tricycle" +e saw Florencio Atadero% Rolando Atadero and Ra!l +!dit standin# near(y and appeared to (e waitin# for some(ody" +e noticed that the three were armed FF Florencio with a (olo and a (!tchers ,nife% Rolando Atadero with a cha*o and a (olo% and Ra!l with a scythe and a stainless ,nife" Then% a tricycle stopped in front of him and one passen#er disem(ar,ed" S!ddenly% the three r!shed toward the tricycle and started to sta( and hac, the passen#ers inside" +e saw three persons (ein# attac,ed" They t!rned o!t to (e Rolando Solinap% Ronelo ?eniel and /d#ardo ?eniel" The victims tried to parry% (!t !pon reali@in# that they were no match for the assailants% they decided to flee" Solinap and Ronelo were a(le to escape" /d#ardo% however% was not as fort!nate" Altho!#h he tried to r!n% he later fell to the #ro!nd and died" Ronamo reported the incident to the police" 91: Ronelo ?eniel% the victim in Criminal Case 3o" ;<DN% also too, the witness stand" +e testified that on Jan!ary 21% 1<<D% aro!nd 2:DD in the afternoon% he met with his (rother% /d#ardo% and Rolando Solinap at 1i(ertad ?ar,et" They went to &an##a &ode#a where he saw Florencio Atadero and Ra!l +!dit" /d#ardo tal,ed with Florencio and Ra!l for a(o!t fifteen min!tes" At the end of the conversation% /d#ardo and Florencio shoo, hands and went separate ways" Ronelo% /d#ardo and Solinap too, a tricycle #oin# to Sista Ale#re" 0hen they reached Sista Ale#re% he was s!rprised to see Ra!l +!dit% Rolando

Atadero and Florencio Atadero ready to assa!lt them" Rolando Atadero was a(o!t to hit him on the head with a cha,o (!t he was *!ic, to dod#e" Ronelo )!mped o!t of the tricycle (!t Rolando Atadero sta((ed him" +e was hit twice FF on his left le# and on his left hand" Rolando Atadero then t!rned to his (rother who was still seated inside the tricycle" Ra!l% possessin# a stainless ,nife and scythe% and Florencio% holdin# a (olo and stainless ,nife% in the meantime% assa!lted Solinap" Ronelo% ,nowin# the f!tility of fi#htin# (ac, (eca!se they lac,ed arms% prompted Solinap to r!n" They fled the scene% leavin# /d#ardo (ehind" 0hen they ret!rned% they saw /d#ardo sprawled on the #ro!nd" They then proceeded to Cora@on 1ocsin ?onteli(ano ?emorial +ospital where they were treated for their in)!ries" Ronelo stated that he spent more than ' DD"DD for his medication" &eca!se of his in)!ries% he was not a(le to wal, for almost one month" +e f!rther stated that he earns '1% DD"DD every 1 days as sec!rity #!ard% in addition to his income as la(orer in the hacienda which is '<D per day" Ronelo related that the tra!ma (ro!#ht a(o!t (y the incident made it diffic!lt for him to sleep for several ni#hts" 91J 2r" Romeo Mellada testified that on Jan!ary 22% 1<<D% he cond!cted an a!topsy on the (ody of /d#ardo ?eniel" +e fo!nd nine in)!ries on the victims (ody FF a cont!sed a(rasion% several incised wo!nds% sta( wo!nds and a hac, wo!nd" 91 +e opined that the fo!r sta( wo!nds fo!nd on the victims (ody were ca!sed (y only one instr!ment which appeared to (e a sin#leF(laded instr!ment" 91A '4: Allan 'lantillo% assi#ned at the +omicide Section of the &acolod 'olice Station% stated that on Jan!ary 21% 1<<D% aro!nd ::D in the afternoon% he received an information re#ardin# a sta((in# incident at Sista Ale#re" +e immediately proceeded to the scene of the crime" 0hen he reached the area aro!nd A::D in the evenin#% he fo!nd the lifeless (ody of /d#ardo ?eniel lyin# on the road% near the residence of a certain 3elly Alis" -n the co!rse of his investi#ation% he interviewed several persons incl!din# the &aran#ay Captain and Rolando Ronamo" 91N The acc!sed Florencio and Rolando Atadero interposed selfFdefense" They claimed that it was the #ro!p of /d#ardo ?eniel% Ronelo ?eniel and Rolando Solinap who first attac,ed them and that they only acted to avert the a##ression" Aside from their own testimonies% they also presented the testimonies of two other witnesses% 'rimitivo Castiller and ?rs" ?a" Fe 2a#o" 'rimitivo Castiller% a carpenter and resident of Sista Ale#re% &acolod City% testified that on Jan!ary 21% 1<<D% aro!nd ::D in the afternoon% he was at the ho!se of 3elly Alis" +e was at the terrace% repairin# a radio% when he saw Florencio Atadero (ein# chased (y a man he does not ,now" +e saw Florencio dash into the ho!se of 3elly Alis and loc, the door (ehind him" '!rs!in# him% the a##ressor forced the door open and sh!t it a#ain after he #ot in" Castiller later heard them str!##lin# inside the ho!se" Fearin# for his own safety% Castiller stepped o!t of the terrace" After a few min!tes% the wall collapsed" +e saw the p!rs!er drop to the #ro!nd% his (ody covered with (lood" 91; ?rs" ?a" Fe 2a#o narrated that on Jan!ary 21% 1<<D% aro!nd ::D in the afternoon% she (oarded a tricycle #oin# to &an##a &ode#a" &efore she (oarded the tricycle% she passed (y five men who seemed to (e ar#!in#" The five men rode the tricycle and prompted the driver to #o" 0hen they reached Sista Ale#re% they stopped in front of the store of a certain Min#FMin#" 0hen the men saw Florencio Atadero (!yin# ci#arettes at the store% they )!mped o!t of the tricycle and chased him" She noted that two of them had ,nives while the other one was holdin# a stone" ?rs" 2a#o r!shed to her mothers ho!se to avoid involvement in the commotion" She later learned that a man died near the ho!se of 3elly Alis" 91< Florencio Atadero stated that in the afternoon of Jan!ary 21% 1<<D% he was at &an##a &ode#a" +e was sittin# inside a tricycle waitin# for passen#ers" A )eepney stopped in front of the tricycle and five men and a woman disem(ar,ed from the )eepney" The five men% /d#ardo ?eniel% Ronelo ?eniel% /dwin Millen% Tirso Sa!si and Rolando Solinap% approached him" /d#ardo confronted him and acc!sed him of (o$in# him d!rin# the town fiesta in 1<;<" Florencio denied the acc!sation and told him that it mi#ht (e one of his (rothers" /d#ardo did not (elieve him and acc!sed him of lyin#" 0hen the tricycle drove off% he heard /d#ardo and his companions sho!tin#% it was really himT The tricycle then proceeded to Sista Ale#re" 0hen they reached Sista Ale#re% he #ot off in front of a sari&sari store to (!y ci#arettes" A few min!tes later% another tricycle arrived and the #ro!p of /d#ardo ?eniel )!mped from the tricycle" /d#ardo h!rled a stone at him and sho!ted% he is hereT Florencio fell after (ein# hit" /d#ardos companions ,ic,ed him and stamped on him as he lay on the #ro!nd" Then% a nei#h(or tried to restrain the assailants" Florencio ran toward the ho!se of his !ncle and entered thro!#h the ,itchen" /d#ardo p!rs!ed him" +e p!shed the door !ntil it was (ro,en" /d#ardo% armed with a ,nife% chased Florencio aro!nd the ,itchen !ntil he was cornered near the wash(asin" 1eft with no choice% Florencio pic,ed !p a ,nife and sta((ed /d#ardo" +e contin!ed sta((in# him !ntil he fell toward the wall which later collapsed" Florencio then went o!t of the ho!se and threw the ,nife" Florencio said that Ra!l +!dit is his (rotherFinFlaw and he was not present at the time of the incident" After the incident% Florencio so!#ht ref!#e at the ho!se of his other !ncle% 0ilfredo Easay" 92D Rolando Atadero testified that on Jan!ary 21%1<<D% (etween 2:DD and J:DD in the afternoon% he reported for wor, at +acienda 1acson in Sista Ale#re" 4n his way home% aro!nd J::D in the afternoon% he was told (y a certain Radin# 1o(aton that his (rother% Florencio Atadero% was (ein# harassed (y a #ro!p of men and was s!spected to (e dead" Rolando went to the place of the incident and he saw the #ro!p of /d#ardo ?eniel% Ronelo ?eniel% /dwin Millen% Tirso Sa!si and Rolando Solinap #an#in# !p on his (rother" +e tried to intervene (!t Solinap t!rned to him and said% why do yo! intend to )oin the fry =sic7% - will ,ill yo!" As he !ttered those words% Solinap immediately thr!st a stainless ,nife at him" Rolando Atadero stepped (ac," Solinap #ave another (low (!t Rolando Atadero was a(le to avoid it" Rolando Atadero hac,ed Solinap with a scythe%

hittin# his ri#ht middle fin#er" Solinap dropped the ,nife and stepped (ac," Ronelo then attac,ed Rolando Atadero% ,ic,in# him at the (ac," As Rolando Atadero sta##ered% Solinap a#ain ,ic,ed him" Rolando Atadero hac,ed Solinap with his scythe on his ri#ht le#" Solinap fell" Then he heard Tirso Sa!si sho!t% tol, r!n% we cannot overcome themT ?eanwhile% his (rother Florencio fled the scene (!t /d#ardo ran after him" Tirso Sa!si and /dwin M!illen% meanwhile% ran to their ho!se to arm themselves" As Solinap lay on the #ro!nd% Ronelo and Rolando Atadero contin!ed to fi#ht" Solinap% nonetheless% mana#ed to hit Rolando Atadero with stones" Then Solinap sho!ted% tol, r!n% yo! mi#ht (e ,illedT Ronelo fled" Rolando Atadero r!shed home to sec!re his family" +e saw his (rother% Florencio% wal,in# toward the direction of his ho!se% with (lood all over his (ody" 921 &ased on the fore#oin# evidence% we hold that the trial co!rt was correct in findin# (oth acc!sedFappellants #!ilty of m!rder and acc!sed Rolando Atadero li,ewise #!ilty of attempted homicide" 0e find no (asis for acc!sedFappellants assertion that they only acted in selfFdefense" To s!pport the acc!seds claim of selfFdefense% he m!st prove the followin# elements (y clear and convincin# evidence: 1" !nlawf!l a##ression on the part of the victim8 2" reasona(le necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attac,8 and :" the person defendin# himself m!st not have provo,ed the victim into committin# the act of a##ression" 0hen an acc!sed admits ,illin# the victim (!t invo,es selfFdefense to escape criminal lia(ility% he ass!mes the (!rden of provin# his plea (y credi(le% clear and convincin# evidence" 4therwise% conviction wo!ld necessarily follow from his admission that he ,illed the victim" 922 0e find in this case that the acc!sedFappellants failed misera(ly to esta(lish the elements of selfFdefense" 0e a#ree with the e$tensive analysis of the trial co!rt of the evidence presented (y the parties% th!s: $$$ The testimonies of prosec!tion witnesses tended to show that the attac, was initiated (y the acc!sed Rolando and Florencio Atadero% as well as Ra!l +!dit" -t is tr!e that /d#ardo ?eniel confronted Florencio Atadero at &an##a &ode#a" &!t the confrontation did not pro#ress (eyond a ver(al e$chan#e and it is !ndisp!ted that the confrontation ended when (oth shoo, hands" 2!rin# the confrontation% /d#ardo ?eniel wanted to confirm if it was Florencio Atadero who (o$ed him" Florencio #ave him a flat denial" /d#ardos do!(ts were not resolved at &an##a &ode#a for Florencio never admitted that he (o$ed /d#ardo ?eniel" /d#ardo ?eniel had no reason to attac, or assa!lt Florencio% for the confrontation ended peacef!lly% as the mis!nderstandin# was settled (etween the parents of (oth parties" 4n the other hand% it can reasona(ly (e ded!ced that Florencio Atadero resented /d#ardo ?eniels act of confrontin# him" At &an##a &ode#a he was with Ra!l +!dit% and /d#ardo ?eniel was with fo!r =J7 companions" -t was o(vio!s that Florencio and Ra!l were o!tn!m(ered" They left &an##a &ode#a in a h!ff% earlier than the #ro!p of ?eniel% and it was very apparent that Florencios resentment #ot the (etter of him" The twenty =2D7 to thirty =:D7 min!tes lead time he had over the #ro!p of ?eniel% was more than eno!#h for him to inform his (rother Rolando Atadero% as well as arm themselves" 0hen the tricycle carryin# /d#ardo ?eniel% Ronelo ?eniel% Rolando Solinap% Tirso Sa!si and /dwin M!illen arrived at Sista Ale#re% the #ro!p of Florencio Atadero% Rolando Atadero% and Ra!l +!dit was already there waitin# in am(!sh" &efore /d#ardo ?eniel co!ld disem(ar,% Rolando Atadero sta((ed him while he was still seated" 0o!nd nos" :%J and +, =/$hi(it &7 are chest wo!nds" 4ne of these wo!nds was inflicted (y Rolando Atadero at the tricycle" Florencio Atadero and Ra!l +!dit had a faceFoff with Rolando Solinap and Ronel ?eniel whom they en#a#ed in manoFaFmano after (oth have disem(ar,ed" &oth Solinap and Ronelo s!stained in)!ries" -t is remar,a(le that Rolando Atadero and Florencio Atadero did not s!stain sta((ed% incised% or hac,ed wo!nds despite claims (y the acc!sed that /d#ardo ?eniel and his #ro!p were also armed" The in)!ries s!stained (y Solinap were on his left ,nee% ri#ht le# and fin#ers on his left hand" 4ne fin#er was severed" These in)!ries esta(lished one simple fact% that Solinap was not (earin# any weapon" +e had to #ra( the (!tchers ,nife (ein# thr!st !pon him to prevent f!rther in)!ries" The same is tr!e with the in)!ries =/$hi(it 27 s!stained (y Ronelo ?eniel" 4ne was on the left thi#h% and the rest on the fin#ers of his left hand" +e had to #rapple for possession of the weapon !sed (y =the7 attac,er lest he s!stain f!rther and more serio!s in)!ries" Florencio pointed to a scar on his left eye(row and ascri(es it to a stone thrown at him (y /d#ardo ?eniel" -f indeed it is tr!e that /d#ardo ?eniel was armed with a 1DFinch ,nife% why wo!ld he (other to throw a stone at FlorencioO The tr!th of the matter is that% /d#ardo ?eniel was not armed" +e had to throw anythin# at the p!rs!in# Florencio% in his (id to escape" &!t already wo!nded (y Rolando% he was not s!ccessf!l in fleein#" Florencio and Rolando Atadero% as well as Ra!l +!dit ca!#ht !p with him at the ho!se of Candelario Alis% and the three =:7 po!nced on him inflictin# f!rther in)!ries on him" The

three =:7 #an#ed !p on him for Rolando Solinap and Ronelo ?eniel mana#ed to escape despite their own in)!ries" -t stands to reason that /d#ardo ?eniel s!stained m!ltiple wo!nds inflicted (y several types of (laded weapons" /d#ardo ?eniel had nine =<7 in)!ries or wo!nds classified as sta((ed% incised% hac,ed% and a(rasion" The fo!r =J7 cate#ories of in)!ries co!ld not have (een inflicted (y several types of (laded weapons" /d#ardo ?eniel had nine =<7 in)!ries or wo!nds classified as sta((ed% incised% hac,ed% and a(rasion" The fo!r =J7 cate#ories of in)!ries co!ld not have (een inflicted (y one =17 attac,er with the !se of several (laded or (l!nt instr!ments" The contention therefore% that the acc!sed acted in selfFdefense specifically that (y Florencio Atadero% has no le# to stand on" $$$ $$$ Apropos% the acc!sed failed to esta(lish (y the evidence add!ced in their favor that /d#ardo ?eniel% Ronelo ?eniel and Rolando Solinap initiated the a##ression" 4n the contrary% the prosec!tion witnesses have satisfactorily esta(lished (y clear and convincin# evidence that the acc!sed were the a##ressors" Second% the re*!isite of reasona(le necessity of the means employed to repel the !nlawf!l a##ression is virt!ally nonFe$istent" Third% while it can (e ass!med that Florencio Atadero was provo,ed (y the (elli#erent attit!de that /d#ardo ?eniel demonstrated when the two had a faceFoff at &an##a &ode#a% s!ch provocation ceased when he shoo, the hand of Florencio and% therefore% was ins!fficient to merit the violent response that Florencio Atadero and company employed"92: Acc!sedFappellants contend that the trial co!rt erred in #ivin# more wei#ht to the testimonies of the prosec!tion witnesses than those of the defense witnesses who were shown to (e disinterested and !n(iased" 0e find no merit in the assertion" /vidence% to (e (elieved% m!st not only proceed from the mo!th of a credi(le witness% (!t it m!st (e credi(le in itself" /vidence is credi(le when it is s!ch as the common e$perience of man,ind can approve as pro(a(le !nder the circ!mstances" 0e have no test of the tr!th of h!man testimony% e$cept its conformity to o!r ,nowled#e% o(servation and e$perience" 92J +ere% the physical evidence rep!diates the claim of the defense witnesses that the initial a##ression came from the victims camp" The a!topsy report on the cadaver of /d#ardo ?eniel shows that the victim s!stained a total of nine wo!nds FF fo!r sta( wo!nds on the chest and several incised wo!nds on the different parts of his (ody" 92 Ronelo ?eniel% meanwhile% s!stained hac, wo!nds on his left thi#h and on his fin#ers on the left hand" 92A -n contrast% (oth acc!sed did not s!ffer any in)!ries% e$cept for the minor c!t on Florencio Ataderos eye(row which was ca!sed (y a stone h!rled at him (y the victim% /d#ardo ?eniel" This is a clear indication of who the real a##ressors are" -f it were tr!e that it was the ?eniels who started the fi#ht and that they were f!lly armed% as the defense wo!ld li,e !s to (elieve% the Ataderos sho!ld have (orne more serio!s in)!ries" &!t the evidence says otherwise" ?oreover% the m!ltiple hac, wo!nds and incised wo!nds s!ffered (y (oth victims are tellin# si#ns of the a#ressors resolve to ,ill them" -t is an oftFrepeated r!le that the nat!re and n!m(er of wo!nds inflicted (y the acc!sed on the victim are constantly and !nremittin#ly considered important indicia which disprove a plea of selfFdefense" 92N 'hysical evidence is evidence of the hi#hest order" -t spea,s more elo*!ently than a h!ndred witnesses" 92; -n the cases at (ar% the physical evidence% consistent with the testimonies of the prosec!tion witnesses% esta(lish (eyond reasona(le do!(t the c!lpa(ility of acc!sedFappellants" F!rthermore% the records show that acc!sedFappellants left &acolod City and moved to ?indanao immediately after the incident" 92< +ence% they came into police c!stody only in 1<<J% after their arrest in Cainta% Ri@al" 9:D Their fli#ht from the scene of the crime (etrays a #!ilty conscience" -t has (een held that the )!stifyin# circ!mstance of selfFdefense may not s!rvive in the face of acc!sedF appellants fli#ht from the crime scene and his fail!re to inform the a!thorities a(o!t the incident" 9:1 4nce a#ain% we reiterate the r!le that findin#s of fact of the trial co!rt carry #reat wei#ht and are entitled to respect on appeal a(sent any stron# and co#ent reason to the contrary% since it is in a (etter position to decide the *!estion of credi(ility of witnesses" -n the determination of the veracity of the testimony% the assessment (y the trial co!rt is accorded the hi#hest de#ree of respect and will not (e dist!r(ed on appeal !nless it is seen to have acted ar(itrarily or with evident partiality" 9:2 0e find no reason in this case to reverse the concl!sions of the trial co!rt as re#ards the #!ilt of acc!sedF appellants" 3onetheless% in Criminal Case 3o" ;<D % we find the award of 'N %DDD"DD for loss of earnin#s improper for lac, of evidence to prove the same" 0e% however% increase the amo!nt of moral dama#es to ' D%DDD"DD in line with recent )!rispr!dence" 9:: -n Criminal Case 3o" ;<DN% the trial co!rt failed to award the victim moral dama#es" .nder Article 221< of the 3ew Civil Code% the victim of a criminal offense res!ltin# in physical in)!ries is entitled to recover moral dama#es" Accordin#ly% we hold that the award of moral dama#es in the amo!nt of ' D%DDD"DD to the victim% Ronelo ?eniel% is in order" IN 'IE? ?8EREOF, the 2ecision in Criminal Case 3os" ;<DN and ;<D of the Re#ional Trial Co!rt of &acolod City is AFF-R?/2 with ?42-F-CAT-43% deletin# the award of 'N %DDD"DD for loss of earnin#s in Criminal Case 3o" ;<D and increasin# the award of moral dama#es to the heirs of /d#ardo ?eniel to ' D%DDD"DD" -n addition% acc!sedFappellant Rolando Atadero is ordered to pay Ronelo ?eniel the s!m of ' D%DDD"DD as moral dama#es in Criminal Case 3o" ;<DN"

S4 4R2/R/2" G.R. N2. 1358;8 =(#+> 12, 2002

PEOPLE OF T8E P8ILIPPINES, plaintiffFappellee% vs" RA=ONITO SAURE (.@.(. ADODONGA, acc!sedFappellant" PUNO, J.: 0hat has (een promised as a ni#ht of festivity and f!n t!rned o!t to (e Renato 1epasandaCs last dance" For his death% an -nformation for m!rder was filed a#ainst acc!sedFappellant Ramonito Sa!re alias B2odon#B on 4cto(er 1N% 1<<A with the Re#ional Trial Co!rt of ?aasin% So!thern 1eyte" -ts acc!satory portion reads: BThat on or a(o!t the 2;th of J!ly 1<<A at aro!nd 1::D oCcloc, a"m"% in &aran#ay &asa,% m!nicipality of ?aasin% province of So!thern 1eyte% 'hilippines% and within the )!risdiction of this +onora(le Co!rt% the a(oveFnamed acc!sed with intent to ,ill% evident premeditation and treachery% and while armed with a fan ,nife ,nown as B&atan#as%B which said acc!sed had provided himself for the p!rpose% did then and there willf!lly% !nlawf!lly and felonio!sly attac,% assa!lt and sta( one Renato 1epasanda% there(y inflictin# !pon the latter the followin# in)!ries: a" Sta( wo!ld 1 inch in len#th =17 chest penetratin# to thoracic cavity8 (" Sta( wo!nd =R7 chest 1 cm" 1evel TA8 c" Sta( wo!nd 1" inch in len#th =R7 chest level TN =R7 posterior a$illary line penetratin# to thoracic cavity8 d" -ncised wo!nd =R7 wrist 1 in" in len#th m!scle deep8 e" -ncised wo!nd 1 inch in len#th =17 wrist8 which ca!sed the instantaneo!s death of the said victim to the dama#e and pre)!dice of his heirs and of social order" C43TRARE T4 1A0"B1 The acc!sedFappellant was arrai#ned on 3ovem(er 2D% 1<<A and entered a plea of not #!ilty" 2 4n trial% the prosec!tion presented the testimonies of /leno Alins!( and /rnesto 1ac(ayo" -t also offered the B&atan#asB ,nife :alle#edly !sed (y the acc!sed and the victimCs Certificate of 2eath prepared (y 2r" Reynaldo Tan who cond!cted the postFmortem e$amination" J The acc!sedFappellant testified on his own (ehalf alon# with three =:7 corro(oratin# witnesses% namely: =17 ?atias S!mampon#8 =27 Remi#io 1acerna8 and =:7 Relito 2a#ami" 'rosec!tion witness /leno Alins!d testified that on the evenin# of J!ly 2N% 1<<A% the &aran#ay Co!ncil of &asa, or#ani@ed a (enefit dance at the (aran#ay a!ditori!m" &ein# the chief baran,ay tanod% he was assi#ned to oversee the peacef!l and orderly cond!ct of the event" At aro!nd 1::D am the followin# day% Alins!( saw acc!sedFappellant Ramonito B2odon#B Sa!re sta( Renato 1epasanda !sin# a B&atan#asB ,nife" +e opined that the sta((in# m!st have (een related with the previo!s ver(al altercation (etween the two% wherein the same reprimanded 1epasanda for forcin# one Arlene 1ac(ayo% alle#ed niece of the latter% to dance a#ainst her wishes"A After 1epasandaCs reprimand% acc!sedFappellant went to the side of the dance hall% p!lled his B&atan#asB ,nife% r!shed towards the victim who was then sittin# in an o(li*!e position% and attac,ed him from the (ac,side" The acc!sedFappellantCs first thr!st landed on the victimCs !pper left chest" Attemptin# to defend himself% 1epasanda pic,ed !p a stool" &!t as he was raisin# the stool% the acc!sedFappellant sta((ed him a#ain several times% hittin# different parts of his !pper chest" N Alins!(% who was three =:7 meters away from the scene% sho!ted at the acc!sedFappellant to avoid any !ntoward incident" +e was hardly heard% tho!#h% (eca!se the m!sic was still playin#" ;

0hile the victim was (ein# attac,ed% Alins!( r!shed towards the acc!sedFappellant% and hit him on the head with a stool" +e shoved the victim away to avoid f!rther harm" The acc!sedFappellant% meanwhile% thr!st his ,nife at Alins!( three times (!t was !na(le to in)!re him (eca!se the latter was already on #!ard" < .pon seein# the incident% /mie 1acerna =also referred to as Reme#io 1acerna7% a co!ncilman of (aran#ay Cany!om and a companion of the acc!sedFappellant% instr!cted the latter to (oard a motorcycle and s!rrender himself to the a!thorities" 1acernaCs son drove the motorcycle and accompanied the acc!sed to the ?aasin 'olice Station" For his part% Alins!( proceeded to the (aran#ay captain of &asa, to report the incident"1D Alins!( f!rther testified that the acc!sedFappellant% who was (i##er and taller than the victim% appeared to (e into$icated when the incident too, place"11 /rnesto 1ac(ayo% (rother of Arlene 1ac(ayo% corro(orated the material alle#ations of Alins!(" +e testified that on J!ly 2N% 1<<A at a(o!t 11::D in the evenin#% he was at the (aran#ay a!ditori!m of &asa, to attend the (enefit dance" 12 +e was occ!pyin# a ta(le with Renato 1epasanda who was seated in front of him" +is sister was seated at another ta(le% ro!#hly three =:7 open arms stretch from them" +e clarified that 1epasanda was not related (y (lood to him nor to his sister" 1: At a(o!t 1::D in the early mornin# of J!ly 2;% 1<<A% 1epasanda approached the acc!sedFappellant and reprimanded him for forcin# Arlene to dance with him" The two had an e$chan#e of words (!t were pacified (y /leno Alins!(" 1epasanda ret!rned to his seat (!t moments later% the acc!sedFappellant appeared with a B&atan#asB ,nife and immediately sta((ed him in his left chest"1J 1ac(ayo declared that the victim was not a(le to defend himself" After hittin# the victim on the left chest% the acc!sedF appellant contin!o!sly and s!ccessively str!c, the victim for aro!nd five = 7 times more while the victim was pic,in# !p a stool to parry the (lows" 1ac(ayo tried to help the victim (!t Reme#io 1acerna prevented him from doin# so" 1acerna #ra((ed the wooden (ench which 1ac(ayo intended to !se a#ainst the acc!sedFappellant" The two of them #rappled for possession of the (ench"1 As this was happenin#% /leno Alins!( instr!cted the victim to r!n" The acc!sedFappellant% however% p!rs!ed him" &eca!se of the acc!sedFappellantCs persistent p!rs!it% Alins!( str!c, him with a (ench% hittin# him on the forehead" The acc!sedF appellant directed his attac, a#ainst Alins!( (!t his attempts were !ns!ccessf!l" At this point% 1acerna em(raced the acc!sed and ordered him to (oard a motorcycle" 1A Ta,in# the witness stand% acc!sedFappellant (elied the fore#oin# testimonies of the prosec!tion and interposed the )!stifyin# circ!mstance of selfFdefense"1-wphi1.n.t +ailin# from the near(y &aran#ay Cany!om% acc!sedFappellant testified that he was in &aran#ay &asa, on the ni#ht of J!ly 2N% 1<<A to attend the (enefit dance"1N 0ith him were Reme#io 1acerna% ?atias S!mampon#% 1; and ?elovino &onote"1< They were occ!pyin# a ta(le )!st across that of Arlene 1ac(ayo% /rnesto 1ac(ayo and Renato 1epasanda" The three were seated (eside the entrance door" 2D 'rior to the incident% the acc!sed was not ac*!ainted with either the victim 1epasanda or the 1ac(ayo si(lin#s"21 At a(o!t 1::D in the mornin# the followin# day% he approached Arlene 1ac(ayo for a special dance" 1epasanda% whom the acc!sedFappellant later learned to (e the (oyfriend of Arlene% stood !p and admonished him" The acc!sedFappellant ass!red 1epasanda that he wo!ld not mind if Arlene wo!ld ref!se to dance with him" 2espite this ass!rance% however% 1epasanda flared !p and a ver(al confrontation ens!ed (etween them" At this point% Alins!(% a (aran#ay tanod% came and pacified them" Reco#ni@in# Alins!(Cs a!thority% and considerin# that he was not from &aran#ay &asa,% acc!sed listened to Alins!(Cs admonition and went (ac, to his seat" +e danced for a while and later on% told his companions that he will !rinate"22 4n his way to the comfort room% he passed (y 1epasandaCs ta(le" 0itho!t provocation% 1epasanda str!c, him with a stool% hittin# him on the forehead" 1epasanda ,ept on hittin# him for some time" Feelin# di@@y% he drew his B&atan#asB ,nife to parry the (lows" Alins!( also str!c, him with a stool% hittin# his nape" 2: &eca!se of the commotion% he was !ns!re whether he h!rt anyone with his B&atan#asB ,nife" +e had a feelin#% tho!#h% that he mi#ht have wo!nded some(ody" So when 1acerna em(raced him and told him to s!rrender% he immediately o(li#ed and went to the ?aasin 'olice Station"2J +e told the a!thorities that he mi#ht have wo!nded some(ody and s!rrendered the B&atan#asB ,nife"2

S!fferin# from swellin#% cont!sion and hematoma% the acc!sedFappellant went to the hospital for medical treatment" 2A +e was accompanied (y two policemen whom he identified as 1ito and a certain 2!ma#!it" 2N The hospital personnel% however% ref!sed to #ive him a medical certificate" +e was instr!cted to #o to the dispensary% instead" 0hen he arrived at the dispensary% he was told that the doctor was in Taclo(an so he went (ac, to the m!nicipal (!ildin#" 2; ?atias S!mampon#% a co!sin of (oth the witness and the acc!sedFappellant% corro(orated the acc!sedFappellantCs testimony"2< +e testified that on J!ly 2N% 1<<A% he was with Ramonito Sa!re and R!(y &onote in &aran#ay &asa, a!ditori!m to attend the (enefit dance" They occ!pied a ta(le and the three of them had a drin," They cons!med one =17 poc,etFsi@e Tand!ay Rh!m and one =17 familyFsi@e Co,e" That evenin#% Renato 1epasanda was with some ladyFcompanions" They were occ!pyin# a ta(le a(o!t three =:7 meters from that of the acc!sedFappellant" S!mampon# and the acc!sedFappellant had a dance with 1epasandaCs companions" After some time% the acc!sedFappellant re*!ested Arlene 1ac(ayo to dance with him a#ain" +e li,ewise so!#ht the permission of 1epasanda who rel!ctantly acceded to the re*!est" The two danced for a while (!t sensin# 1epasandaCs rel!ctance% the acc!sedFappellant escorted Arlene (ac, to her seat":D At a(o!t 1::D am the followin# day% he saw Renato 1epasanda stri,e the acc!sedFappellant on the face with a stool" The acc!sedFappellant drew his B&atan#asB ,nife% parryin# the (lows inflicted (y 1epasanda" -n the process% the acc!sedF appellant wo!nded 1epasanda on the ri#ht chest" The acc!sedFappellant and the victim were facin# each other when the former inflicted in)!ry on the latter":1 Sei@ed (y fear% S!mampon# was !na(le to do anythin#" +e did not want to #et involved with his co!sinsC *!arrel" +e finally re#ained his compos!re and as,ed the acc!sedFappellant to stop thr!stin# his ,nife at 1epasanda" &y then% several people started #an#in# !p on the acc!sedFappellant" :2 2efense also presented Remi#io 1acerna% a (aran#ay ,a#awad of &aran#ay Cany!om" 1acerna testified that he was in &aran#ay &asa, on J!ly 2N% 1<<A% to attend the (enefit dance" +e arrived at the (aran#ay a!ditori!m at a(o!t 1D:DD pm" The acc!sedFappellant )oined him at his ta(le an ho!r later":: 1ater that ni#ht% 1acerna paid one h!ndred pesos ='1DD"DD7 to the or#ani@er of the (enefit dance for five = 7 m!sical pieces and as,ed a lady to dance with him" Acc!sedFappellant also danced (!t after the first piece% he approached Arlene 1ac(ayo% pres!ma(ly to invite her to dance" 1acerna% however% noticed that the acc!sedFappellant did not dance when the second piece was played":J At a(o!t 1::D am the followin# day% 1acerna saw 1epasana hit the acc!sedFappellant with a stool" As the li#hts were dim% he (arely saw what was happenin#" +e tho!#ht that the acc!sedFappellant retaliated (y (o$in# 1epasana only" : -t was only later that he reali@ed that the acc!sedFappellant had sta((ed 1epasana" :A3onetheless% he saw Alins!( hit the acc!sedF appellant on the nape !sin# a stool" Seein# this% he em(raced the acc!sedFappellant and told him to ride the motorcycle driven (y his son% and s!rrender to police a!thorities":N +e went home to Cany!om ri#ht after the incident" 4nly then did he learn that the victim was his #randson" :; 1acerna claimed that he was not aware of any ver(al altercation (etween the acc!sedFappellant and the victim (efore the incident":< Altho!#h he is ac*!ainted with ?atias S!mampon# and R!(y Ra(onete% did not notice their presence at the (enefit dance"JD Finally% defense presented S'4: Relito 2a#ami% assi#ned with the Meneral Assi#nment Services of the 'hilippine 3ational 'olice" +e testified that on J!ly 2;% 1<<A% at a(o!t <:DD am% the acc!sedFappellant% who was then detained at the ?aasin 'olice Station% re*!ested a medical e$amination for the in)!ries he s!stained" 0ith a patrol car% he accompanied the acc!sed to the -nte#rated 'rovincial +ealth 4ffice" The acc!sedFappellant% however% was not #iven a medical certificate" +e was instr!cted to sec!re the medical certificate from the R!ral +ealth .nit (!t when they arrived there% they were informed that the doctor was in Taclo(an"J1 Th!s% they went (ac, to the m!nicipal (!ildin#" J2 2a#ami attested that the face of the acc!sedFappellant was indeed swollen"J: Mivin# credence to the witnesses for the prosec!tion% the trial co!rt disre#arded the acc!sedFappellantCs claim of selfF defense% /i0:" BAcc!sed denied the m!rder char#e and invo,es selfFdefense anchored mainly on his selfFservin# testimony% and pleadin# a miti#ation% tried to esta(lish the circ!mstance of vol!ntary s!rrender" +is testimony tried to o(tain corro(oration from witnesses ?atias S!mampon# and Remi#io 1acerna" &!t to no avail" They were not a(le to overcome the positive and strai#htforward declarations of the prosec!tion witnesses"

Acc!sed attempts to lay the (lame on victim Renato as the one who first assa!lted him (y stri,in# him with a stool% and to defend himself% he too, hold of his fan ,nife and did not reali@e that he was a(le to hit Renato on the chest" This is specio!s" &etween him and Renato he has more teeth to #rit% or a$e to #rind% or hatred to har(or (eca!se Renato prevented him for forcin# his way on RenatoCs niece% Arlene" The ranco!r was more in his heart" +e had more motive to do harm" The Co!rt finds the prosec!tion witnesses to (e more credi(le than those of the acc!sed no matter how the acc!sed tried to cast do!(t on the veracity of the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosec!tion" The latterCs testimonies are eye(all testimonies and far from (ein# per)!red" 3o improper motives impelled the prosec!tion witnesses to testify as they did"B Accordin#ly% the trial co!rt fo!nd the acc!sed #!ilty (eyond reasona(le do!(t of the crime char#ed" Appreciatin# the miti#atin# circ!mstance of vol!ntary s!rrender% the trial co!rt sentenced the acc!sed to an imprisonment term of reclusion perpetua% incl!din# its accessory penalties and costs% /i01 B0+/R/F4R/% )!d#ment is here(y rendered findin# the acc!sed RA?43-T4 SA.R/ U 2odon# M.-1TE (eyond reasona(le do!(t of the crime char#ed and sentences him to a determinate indivisi(le imprisonment term of R23456I 7 P2RP285%% and its accessory penalties% and to pay the costs" -n death indemnity% acc!sed Sa!re is ordered to pay the heirs of Renato 1epasanda death indemnity in the amo!nt of ' D%DDD"DD and moral dama#es of '1D%DDD"DD" S4 4R2/R/2"BJJ The acc!sed seasona(ly appealed to !s contendin# that the trial co!rt erred =17 in not appreciatin# his claim of selfFdefense8 and =27 in holdin# the ,illin# was attended (y treachery and evident premeditation" J -t is horn(oo, doctrine that where selfFdefense is invo,ed% it is inc!m(ent !pon the acc!sedFappellant to prove (y clear and convincin# evidence that 91> he is not the !nlawf!l a##ressor8 92> there was lac, of s!fficient provocation on his part8 and 9:> he employed reasona(le means to prevent and repel an a##ression"JA The acc!sedFappellant m!st also rely on the stren#th of his own evidence and not on the wea,ness of that of the prosec!tion% for even if the latter were wea,% it wo!ld not (e dis(elieved after his open admission of responsi(ility for the ,illin#" 4n appeal% this (!rden (ecomes even more diffic!lt as the acc!sedFappellant m!st show that the co!rt (elow committed reversi(le error in appreciatin# the evidence" JN At the heart of the claim for selfFdefense is the presence of an !nlawf!l a##ression committed a#ainst the acc!sedF appellant" 0itho!t !nlawf!l a##ression% selfFdefense will not have a le# to stand on and this )!stifyin# circ!mstance cannot and will not (e appreciated% even if the other elements are present" .nlawf!l a##ression pres!pposes an act!al% s!dden% and !ne$pected attac,% or imminent dan#er thereof"J; The person defendin# himself m!st have (een attac,ed with act!al physical force or with act!al !se of weapon" J< -n the case at (ar% the acc!sedFappellant tried to prove that the !nlawf!l a##ression emanated from the victim who str!c, him with a stool% witho!t any provocation on his part% and after their previo!s ver(al altercation had already (een settled" +e f!rther testified that he drew his ,nife to parry the (lows (!t he was not aware that he had accidentally hit the victim% /i0: B5: A: 5" A: 5: A: 5: 0hen yo! ret!rned to yo!r respective ta(le% what happened ne$t% if anyO ?!sic were 9sic: played and - dance and - as,ed permission from my companion that - will !rinate" Then what happenedO 0hen - passed (y in front of their ta(le% - was str!c, (y a stool in 9sic: my forehead and - was hit" 0ho str!c, yo! with a stoolO - was str!c, (y Renato 1epasanda" 0ere yo! hitO

A: 5: A:

Ees% maam" 0hereO +ere"

-nterpreter: 0itness is pointin# his forehead" C4.RT: 0here is the scarO A: 3o scar% Eo! +onor )!st a swell"

C4.RT: 0hat happened ne$tO A: +e ,ept on (eatin# me and - was not anymore aware that - hit him (eca!se - !sed my fan ,nife or &atan#as ,nife to parry his (lows"B D .pon his s!rrender at the police station% the acc!sed maintained his evasive post!re% /i0: BATTE" 1/S-M./S: 0hen yo! s!rrender 9sic: to the police a!thorities in ?aasin% what did yo! tell themO A: - told them that - was attac,ed witho!t provocation and - was as,ed who attac,ed me witho!t provocation told them - do not ,now the person" C4.RT: So yo! did not s!rrender (eca!se yo! sta((ed some(ody (!t (eca!se another person attac,ed yo! or ,ipare,lahan *aO A: - s!rrendered (eca!se - told may (e 9sic: - wo!nded a person" +ere is my fan ,nife yo! )!st verify the person whom - wo!nded and then they went to the hospital and when they ret!rned - was told that the person was already dead and so they placed me in )ail"B 1 ?oreover% S'4: Relito 2e#ami% who testified for the defense% declared that when he escorted the acc!sed to o(tain medical attendance% acc!sed merely told him that he was involved in some tro!(le% /i0: B5: A: 5: A": 5: A: 2id Ramonito Sa!re tell yo! how did he s!stain that swollen faceO - was told (y him that he was involved in a tro!(le" 2id he tell yo! that he ,illed a certain Renato 1epasandaO 3o% sir" 2id he tell yo! that he ,illed the one who ca!sed in)!ries to himO 3o% sir"

5: A:

So% all that Ramonito Sa!re told yo! is that he was involved in a tro!(leO Ees% sir"B
2

0e have r!led that the fail!re on the part of the acc!sed to inform the police !pon his s!rrender that he acted in selfF defense in committin# the crime char#ed is fatal to his defense" : +is testimony to the effect that he does not remem(er havin# sta((ed the victim is inconsistent with selfFdefense% which in essence is an admission of the ,illin# in order to preserve oneCs life or lim(" &ein# evasive% s!ch testimony does not help at all in esta(lishin# selfFdefense" J ?oreover% the defense admitted% witho!t *!alification% the victimCs death certificate% which was offered to prove that the victim died of cardioFrespiratory arrest res!ltin# from massive (lood loss d!e to m!ltiple sta( wo!nds" 4ftFrepeated is the r!le that the presence of a lar#e n!m(er of wo!nds% five = 7 in this case% ne#ates selfFdefense and indicates a determined effort to ,ill the victim" Finally% the acc!sedFappellant tried to o(tain corro(oration from two of his companions that ni#ht" Remi#io 1acerna% however% testified that he was not a(le to witness the entire incident (eca!se the li#hts were dim% and from his distance% he co!ld only see an ima#e of the act!al events" 0hile insistin# that he saw the victim stri,e the acc!sedFappellant first !sin# a stool% 1acerna tho!#ht that the acc!sedFappellant merely (o$ed the victim in retaliation" +e did not see him sta( the victim" J!st li,e 1acerna% ?atias S!mampon# claimed that he saw the victim stri,e the acc!sedFappellant with the stool and that the latter sta((ed the former only once" Seein# everythin# that transpired% S!mampon# was str!c, (y fear and did not (other to do anythin# despite the fact that (oth the acc!sed and the victim are his relatives" The trial co!rt fo!nd the testimonies of 1acerna and S!mampon# incredi(le and not worthy of (elief" 0e reiterate that when the iss!e is one of credi(ility of witnesses% appellate co!rts will #enerally not dist!r( the findin# of the trial co!rt% !nless it has plainly overloo,ed certain facts of s!(stance and val!e that% if considered% mi#ht affect the res!lt of the case" A This is so (eca!se the latter is in a (etter position to decide the *!estion% havin# heard the witnesses and o(served their deportment and manner of testifyin# d!rin# trial" 0e have caref!lly e$amined the records and the acc!sed has failed to convince !s that there is room in this appeal for the application of the e$ception" ?orever% the acc!sedFappellant has not shown that the witnesses for the prosec!tion had any illFmotive a#ainst him which wo!ld have moved them to falsely implicate him in the death of Renato 1epasanda" -t is settled that where there is nothin# to indicate that the principal witnesses for the prosec!tion were act!ated (y improper motive% the pres!mption is that they were not so act!ated and their testimony are entitled to f!ll faith and credit" N All told% the plea of selfFdefense cannot (e )!stifia(ly entertained" Acc!sedFappellant havin# failed to dischar#e the (!rden provin# his defense% his conviction necessarily follows% on the (asis of his admission to the ,illin#" The lower co!rt also held that the acc!sedFappellant committed the crime of m!rder% as *!alified (y the treachery% which was specifically alle#ed in the information" There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes a#ainst persons% employin# means% methods or forms in the e$ec!tion thereof which tend directly and specially to ins!re its e$ec!tion% witho!t ris, to himself arisin# from any defense which the offended party may ma,e" ; Treachery is evidently present in the instant case as the acc!sedFappellant% stealthily and witho!t warnin#% r!shed towards the victim from (ehind and sta((ed him in the chest" The victim% who was then seated% was not aware of any impendin# dan#er" Altho!#h there had (een prior ver(al altercation% the victim had reasons to (elieve that the matter has already (een settled after Alins!(Cs intervention" Considerin# the m!ltit!de of persons who participated in the (enefit dance% he was totally devoid of any s!spicion that the acc!sedFappellant% who was not a resident of &aran#ay &asa,% wo!ld perform s!ch a dastardly act" 0hen the victim was tryin# to r!n away% the acc!sedFappellant even p!rs!ed him and sta((ed him repeatedly while tryin# to defend himself" Altho!#h the information also specifically alle#ed evident premeditation as a *!alifyin# circ!mstance to the offense char#ed% the lower co!rt did not rely !pon this circ!mstance to s!stain a conviction of m!rder" 3either was evident premeditation appreciated as a #eneral a##ravatin# circ!mstance" The lower co!rt e$plicitly stated that there was no other a##ravatin# circ!mstance attendant to the commission of the offense" < At the time of the commission of the crime% R" A" 3o" NA < was already in effect" Th!s% the applica(le penalty for m!rder is reclusion perpetua to death" There (ein# no a##ravatin# circ!mstance (!t with one #eneric miti#atin# circ!mstance of vol!ntary s!rrender% the penalty imposa(le to the acc!sedFappellant% in accordance with article AJ =27 of the Revised 'enal Code sho!ld (e the minim!m period% which is reclusion perpetua"

Anent the dama#es% the co!rt was correct in orderin# the acc!sedFappellant to pay the heirs of the victim' D%DDD"DD as civil indemnity"1-wphi1.n.t ?8EREFORE% the imp!#ned decision of the Re#ional Trial Co!rt of ?aasin% So!thern 1eyte% &ranch 2 in Criminal Case 3o" 1< < findin# acc!sedFappellant Ramonito B2odon#B Sa!re #!ilty (eyond reasona(le do!(t of the crime of m!rder is affirmed" +e is here(y sentenced to s!ffer the indivisi(le penalty of R23456I 7 P2RP285% and to pay the heirs of the victim the amo!nt of ' D%DDD"DD as civil indemnity" Costs a#ainst appellant" SO ORDERED.

9G.R. N2. 13;53;. A%-%$) 29, 2002: PEOPLE OF T8E P8ILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPO1 RAFAEL TRAPANE, Accused-Appellant. DECISION YNARES SANTIAGO, J.* 4n A!#!st 1A% 1<<:% at 11::D p"m"% &aran#ay Captain Constantino Re(anal and &aran#ay Tanod An#el Alma@an% (oth of Talon#o#% 4as% Al(ay% went to the Fernandos +ideaway (eerho!se" Alma@an ordered drin,s and was )oined at the ta(le (y one of the lady entertainers" Re(anal stayed o!tside on the porch of the (eer ho!se where he tal,ed with 1oreto Sotto and 'edio Re$" At 1:DD a"m"% one of the lady entertainers at the ta(le of a #ro!p of policemen inside the (eerho!se went o!tside and approached Re(anal" She told him that she and the other ladies were #ettin# intimidated (y the policemen% who were dr!n, and displayin# their firearms" 1ater% one of the policemen in the #ro!p% '42 Arn!lfo Salencia% stepped o!t on the porch" Re(anal introd!ced himself and politely told him that the lady entertainers were #ettin# apprehensive over the p!(lic display of their firearms" Salencia retorted that Re(anal had no (!siness meddlin# with their affairs since he was only a (aran#ay captain" Then% Salencia hit Re(anal on the chest and ,ic,ed him in the lower a(domen" Since Salencia was tipsy% he fell off the porch" +e tried to #et !p (!t fell down a#ain" At that moment% Re(anal loo,ed inside the (eerho!se and saw a man in a vest% later identified as acc!sedFappellant S'41 Rafael Trapane% approach Alma@an while the latter was payin# for his (ill at the cashiers co!nter" Acc!sedFappellant drew a #!n from his waist and shot Alma@an on the (ac," Altho!#h (adly wo!nded% Alma@an mana#ed to r!n towards the road (!t fell down" Re(anal% on the other hand% ran towards the police station of 4as% Al(ay% which was AD meters away from the (eerho!se% to see, assistance" 0hen the police arrived at the scene% they fo!nd Alma@an lyin# prostrate on the road" +e was r!shed to the /mer#ency +ospital of 1i#ao% Al(ay (!t !nfort!nately% he died !pon reachin# the hospital" 91> 2r" /mma F!enta(ellaFRe(ato% ?!nicipal +ealth 4fficer of 4as% Al(ay% who cond!cted the postFmortem e$amination on Alma@an% fo!nd that he s!ffered two #!nshot wo!nds" She opined that the assailant was most pro(a(ly positioned (ehind the victim since the point of entry of the #!nshot wo!nd was at the (ac, of the (ody" She placed the ca!se of death as ac!te hypovolemic shoc, d!e to severe hemorrha#e res!ltin# in severe loss of (lood" 92> The defense% on the other hand% so!#ht to esta(lish that on the ni#ht of the shootin#% acc!sedFappellant went to Fernandos +ideaway (eerho!se with '42 Arn!lfo Salencia and S'4: Rodri#o Ramos to cond!ct a s!rveillance on certain armed men si#hted in the (eerho!se% p!rs!ant to an a#ents report" The police officers wore civilian clothes% and when they arrived at the (eerho!se they ordered (eer and en#a#ed the company of lady entertainers" After some time% team leader S'4: Ramos decided to ret!rn to camp% (!t instr!cted S'41 Trapane and '42 Salencia that they sho!ld leave one at a time" '42 Salencia was to #o o!t first% followed (y S'41 Trapane" 9:> 0hen '42 Salencia #ot o!t of the (eerho!se% three men s!ddenly attac,ed him" Salencia alle#edly fell to the #ro!nd% while the three !nidentified men tried to #et his service pistol" +e tried to prevent them from wrestin# the pistol from him (y rollin# on the #ro!nd !ntil he reached the other side of the road" 4ne of the a##ressors tried to sta( him with a ,nife" S!ddenly two #!nshots ran# o!t% followed (y another" 9J>

-t t!rned o!t that the shots came from acc!sedFappellant S'41 Trapane who affirmed that he fired warnin# shots (eca!se he saw '42 Salencia (ein# ma!led (y three !nidentified men" +owever% no one seemed to heed the warnin# shots" 0hen he saw one of the a##ressors tryin# to sta( Salencia% acc!sedFappellant decided to shoot the a##ressor on the lower portion of the (ody" After that% the a##ressors fled" 9 > 2efense witness Rosemarie 2ionson corro(orated the testimonies of acc!sedFappellant% S'4: Rodri#o Ramos and '42 Arn!lfo Salencia" She stated that she saw '42 Salencia (ein# ma!led (y three men% two of whom she identified as Re(anal and Alma@an" She also saw that Alma@an was holdin# a ,nife" She #ot scared and ran (ac, into the (eerho!se" 9A> S'41 Trapane% S'4: Ramos and '4: Salencia were char#ed with the m!rder of An#el Alma@an" 9N> After preliminary investi#ation% J!d#e A!rora &inamiraF'arcia of the ?!nicipal Circ!it Trial of 1i#aoF4as% recommended the indictment of acc!sedFappellant S'41 Rafael Trapane only" 9;> 4n 3ovem(er 2A% 1<<:% an information was filed with the Re#ional Trial Co!rt of 1i#ao% Al(ay% &ranch 12 a#ainst S'41 Rafael Trapane% to wit: That on or a(o!t 1::D ocloc, in the mornin# of A!#!st 1N% 1<<:% at &r#y" -raya 3orte% ?!nicipality of 4as% 'rovince of Al(ay% 'hilippines and within the )!risdiction of this +onora(le Co!rt% the a(oveFnamed acc!sed% with intent to ,ill% did then and there% wilf!lly% !nlawf!lly and felonio!sly and with treachery attac, and shoot A3M/1 A1?AVA3 E S-A1 to death% to the dama#e and pre)!dice of his le#al heirs" A11 ACTS C43TRARE T4 1A0"9<> 4n ?ay 21% 1<<;% the acc!sedFappellant was convicted of m!rder in a decision% the dispositive portion of which reads: 0+/R/F4R/% premises considered% the prosec!tion havin# proven the #!ilt of the acc!sed% Rafael &" Trapane% (eyond reasona(le do!(t% this co!rt finds him M.-1TE as char#ed for the crime of ?.R2/R" Accordin#ly% he is here(y sentenced% to s!ffer the penalty of R/C1.S-43 '/R'/T.A% and to s!ffer the accessory penalties provided for (y law" F!rther% to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amo!nt of /-M+TE T+4.SA32 '/S4S =';D%DDD"DD7 as act!al dama#es and F-FTE T+4.SA32 '/S4S =' D%DDD"DD7 as moral and e$emplary dama#es and to pay the costs" S4 4R2/R/2"91D> +ence% the instant appeal% (ased on the followin# errors: T+/ +434RA&1/ R/M-43A1 TR-A1 C4.RT MRAS/1E /RR/2 -3 F-32-3M T+/ ACC.S/2 M.-1TE &/E432 R/AS43A&1/ 24.&T 4F T+/ CR-?/ C+ARM/2 2/S'-T/ T+/ 'R/S/3C/ 4F J.ST-FE-3M C-RC.?STA3C/ 4F SA1-2 S/1FF2/F/3S/ 4R -3 34T C43S-2/R-3M -3 FAS4R 4F T+/ ACC.S/2 T+/ J.ST-FE-3M C-RC.?STA3C/ 4F -3C4?'1/T/ S/1FF2/F/3S/ =2/F/3S/ 4F A STRA3M/R7" -ASS.?-3M T+AT T+/ ACC.S/2 -S M.-1TE 4F K-11-3M T+/ S-CT-?% T+/ TR-A1 C4.RT MRAS/1E /RR/2 -3 C43S-CT-3M T+/ ACC.S/2 4F T+/ CR-?/ AS C+ARM/2% -3ST/A2 4F T+/ CR-?/ 4F C43S.??AT/2 +4?-C-2/ 431E% C43S-2/R-3M T+/ C1/AR A&S/3C/ 4F T+/ ?42-FE-3M C-RC.?STA3C/ 4F TR/AC+/RE -3 T+/ C4??-SS-43 T+/R/4F"911> Acc!sedFappellant ar#!es that in shootin# Alma@an% he merely acted in defense of a stran#er" F!rther% he claims that% if at all% he can only (e convicted of homicide since there was no treachery in the ,illin# of the victim" The )!stifyin# circ!mstance of selfFdefense or defense of stran#er% li,e ali(i% is a defense which can easily (e fa(ricated" 912> +ence% it is inherently wea,% and in order that it may (e s!ccessf!lly invo,ed% acc!sedFappellant m!st prove the followin# elements: =17 !nlawf!l a##ression (y the victim8 =27 reasona(le necessity of the means to prevent or repel it8 and =:7 the person defendin# was not ind!ced (y reven#e% resentment% or other evil motive" 91:> ?oreover% he cannot rely on the wea,ness of the prosec!tion (!t on the stren#th of his own evidence% for even if the evidence of the prosec!tion were wea, it co!ld not (e dis(elieved after the acc!sed himself admitted the ,illin#" 91J>

+ence% while it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosec!tion has the (!rden of provin# the #!ilt of the acc!sed% the r!le is reversed where the acc!sed admits committin# the crime (!t only in his or anothers defense" 91 > 2i incumbit probatio ;ui dicit, non ;ue ne,at he who asserts% not he who denies% m!st prove" 91A> 2efense% whether of ones self% a relative or a stran#er% as a )!stifyin# or miti#atin# circ!mstance re*!ires as a condition sine ;ua non the element of !nlawf!l a##ression on the part of the victim"91N> .nlawf!l a##ression pres!pposes an act!al% s!dden% and !ne$pected attac,% or imminent dan#er thereof" The person defendin# himself m!st have (een attac,ed with act!al physical force or with act!al !se of weapon" 91;> -n the case at (ar% the element of !nlawf!l a##ression is a(sent" Aside from acc!sedFappellants selfFservin# statement% there is nothin# to corro(orate his statement that the victim attempted to sta( '42 Salencia" 2efense witness Rosemarie 2ionson testified that she saw the victim holdin# a ,nife% then o!t of fear she retreated into the (eerho!se and hid (ehind the co!nter" 91<> She did not cate#orically state that she saw the victim thr!st the ,nife towards '42 Salencia" /ven ass!min# that the victim% Re(anal and an !nidentified person #an#ed !p and ma!led '42 Salencia% acc!sedF appellants act of firin# his #!n at them was not a reasona(le means to repel the attac," 0e are not convinced that the victim attempted to sta( '42 Salencia" +ence% the latter was in no real dan#er" -n any event% we s!stain the trial co!rts eval!ation of the evidence" -t fo!nd the testimonies of the prosec!tion witnesses% partic!larly Constantino Re(anal% strai#htforward and credi(le" 4n the contrary% the trial co!rt noted that the version of the defense was inconsistent with the normal co!rse of thin#s" -t also dis(elieved the testimony of defense witness Rosemarie 2ionson" After a caref!l review of the transcripts and evidence on record% we a#ree with the trial co!rts findin# that the testimony of Constantino Re(anal was forthri#ht and more worthy of faith and credence" +e declared that from a distance of three meters% he saw acc!sedFappellant shoot Alma@an point (lan, at the (ac," +e also testified that it was '42 Salencia who was the !nlawf!l a##ressor" 92D> -t is horn(oo, doctrine that the trial co!rts eval!ation of the testimony of the witnesses is accorded #reat respect (y the appellate co!rts (y reason of its !ni*!e opport!nity to o(serve the witnesses on the stand and to determine whether they are tellin# the tr!th or not" 921> This Co!rt will #enerally not interfere with the )!d#ment of the trial co!rt in passin# !pon the credi(ility of witnesses !nless there appears on record some fact or circ!mstance of wei#ht and infl!ence which has (een overloo,ed and if considered wo!ld affect the o!tcome of the case"922> 3one e$ist in the case at (ar" &esides% there appears no reason for Re(anal to falsely imp!te s!ch a serio!s crime on acc!sedFappellant" A(sent any proof thereof% the pres!mption is that witnesses were not act!ated (y improper motive" 92:> 0e (elieve that Re(anal was impelled (y a #en!ine desire to see that )!stice is dispensed" +owever% we do not a#ree with the trial co!rt that treachery attended the ,illin#" There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes a#ainst persons% employin# means% methods% or forms in the e$ec!tion thereof% tendin# directly and specially to ins!re its e$ec!tion witho!t ris, to himself arisin# from the defense which the offended party mi#ht ma,e" 92J> Th!s% to appreciate treachery% two re*!isites m!st conc!r: =17 the employment of means of e$ec!tion that #ives the person attac,ed no opport!nity to defend himself or retaliate8 and =27 the deli(erate or conscio!s adoption of the means of e$ec!tion" 92 > -n the case at (ar% the events which led to the shootin# were so spontaneo!s that it cannot (e said that acc!sedFappellant deli(erated on the means of e$ec!tion" +ence% the crime committed is only +omicide" .nder Article 2J< of the Revised 'enal Code% +omicide is p!nisha(le (y reclusion temporal" Considerin# that there are neither miti#atin# nor a##ravatin# circ!mstances in this case% the penalty shall (e imposed in its medi!m period" Acc!sedF appellant shall li,ewise (e entitled to the (enefits of the -ndeterminate Sentence 1aw" Th!s% he shall (e sentenced to a penalty of ei#ht =;7 years and one =17 day of prision mayor% as minim!m% to fo!rteen =1J7 years% ei#ht =;7 months and one =17 day of reclusion temporal% as ma$im!m" The dama#es awarded (y the trial co!rt needs modification" The amo!nt of act!al dama#es m!st (e s!(stantiated" To )!stify an award of act!al dama#es% it is necessary to prove the act!al amo!nt of loss with a reasona(le de#ree of certainty% premised !pon competent proof and on the (est evidence o(taina(le (y the in)!red party" 92A> -n the case at (ar% only the amo!nt of '1 %DDD"DD can (e awarded as f!neral e$penses% since these were the only dama#es d!ly receipted" 92N> 1i,ewise% the award (y the trial co!rt of moral and e$emplary dama#es of ' D%DDD"DD m!st (e modified" ?oral and e$emplary dama#es rest on different )!ral fo!ndations and cannot (e l!mped to#ether as one" /$emplary dama#es are awarded in criminal offenses only when the crime was committed with one or more a##ravatin# circ!mstances" 92;> Since there were no a##ravatin# circ!mstances in this case% e$emplary dama#es may not (e awarded" +owever% considerin# the pain and an#!ish of the victims family (ro!#ht a(o!t (y his death% the award of ' D%DDD"DD as moral dama#es is )!stified" 92<> Finally% civil indemnity of ' D%DDD"DD sho!ld (e awarded% the same (ein# mandatory !pon the findin# of the fact of ,illin#" 9:D>

?8EREFORE % in view of the fore#oin#% the appealed decision of the Re#ional Trial Co!rt of 1i#ao% Al(ay% &ranch 12% is ?42-F-/2" Acc!sedFappellant S'41 Rafael Trapane is fo!nd #!ilty (eyond reasona(le do!(t of the crime of +omicide and is sentenced to s!ffer the indeterminate penalty of ei#ht =;7 years and one =17 day of prision mayor% as minim!m% to fo!rteen =1J7 years% ei#ht =;7 months and one =17 day of reclusion temporal% as ma$im!m" F!rther% acc!sedFappellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased% An#el Alma@an% the amo!nts of '1 %DDD"DD as act!al dama#es8 ' D%DDD"DD as moral dama#es8 and ' D%DDD"DD as civil indemnity" Costs de officio. S4 4R2/R/2"

G.R. N2$. 1;81;5 ;6 J%4< 5, 200; PEOPLE OF T8E P8ILIPPINES,appellee% vs" FELIB 'ENTURA < CUINDOY (/, ARANTE FLORES < 'ENTURA,appellants" Facts: The spo!ses Jaime and Aileen &ocate)a were% in the early ho!rs of Fe(r!ary 2:% 2DDD% fast asleepin their room on the #ro!nd floor of their twoFstorey ho!se at Al!nanFE!lo in &acolod City% 3e#ros4ccidental" The room had a #lass wall with a #lass slidin# door which was closed (!t not loc,ed" The,itchen li#ht was open% as was the li#ht in the ad)oinin# room where the co!pleCs yo!n# children%J!mmylin and Janine% were sleepin#" Their niece% Aireen &ocate)a% and JaimeCs elder da!#hter% Ri@@a?ae% were asleep in their rooms on the second floor"AAt aro!nd 2:DD a"m"%N Jaime was ro!sed from hissleep (y appellant Sent!ra who% to#ether with his nephew appellant Flores% had stealthily entered theco!pleCs room after they #ained entry into the ho!se (y c!ttin# a hole in the ,itchen door"As esta(lished(y the testimonial and o()ect evidence for the prosec!tion% the followin# transpired thereafter:AppellantSent!ra pointed a revolver at JaimeCs face% anno!nced a holdF!p% hit Jaime on the head with the #!n andas,ed him for his ,eys";0hen appellant Sent!ra str!c, him a#ain% Jaime called o!t for help and tried to#ra( the revolver" The two men then str!##led for possession of the #!n" As Jaime almost s!cceeded inwrestin# possession of the #!n from him% appellant Flores sho!ted to appellant Sent!ra to sta( Jaime".sin# the ,nife hewas carryin#% appellant Flores sta((ed Jaime three times" Jaime there!pon releasedthe #!n% threw a near(y plastic stool at the )alo!sy #lass window ca!sin# it to (rea, and cried o!t forhelp"<-n the meantime% Aileen who had (een awa,ened% (e#an sho!tin# for help as she saw her h!s(andin mortal dan#er" Appellant Flores sta((ed her% however% with his ,nife% and altho!#h Aileen tried todefend herself with an electric cord% appellant Flores contin!ed sta((in# her"1DAwa,ened (y thecommotion% Aireen descended the stairs and saw the ,nife wieldin# appellant Flores whom shereco#ni@ed as a former employee of the (!tcher shop of the &ocata)e spo!ses" 'leadin# with appellantFlores not to harm her% Aireen ran (ac, !pstairs into Ri@@a ?aeCs room% and the two called to theirnei#h(ors for help" Appellants Sent!ra and Flores there!pon fled the &ocate)a ho!se%12(rin#in# nothin#with them" -ss!e: 0het)er or not the co!rt erred in considerin# evident premeditation as a *!alifyin# circ!mstanceO R!lin#: The essence of evident premeditation is that the e$ec!tion of the criminal act m!st (e preceded(y cool tho!#ht and reflection !pon the resol!tion to carry o!t the criminal intent d!rin# a space of times!fficient to arrive at a calm )!d#ment":< For it to (e appreciated% the followin# m!st (e proven (eyondreasona(le do!(t: =17 the time when the acc!sed determined to commit the crime8 =27 an act manifestlyindicatin# that the acc!sed cl!n# to his determination8 and =:7 s!fficient lapse of time (etween s!chdetermination and e$ec!tion to allow him to reflect !pon the circ!mstances of his act"JD &y appellantsC ar#!ment% even if appellant Sent!ra (ecame )ealo!s when he learned of the illicit affair(etween his wife and Jaime% it is not% (y itself% s!fficient proof that he determined to ,ill the latter8 that withJaimeCs testimony that appellant had anno!nced a BholdF!p%B they% at most% intended to ro(% (!t not ,ill thespo!ses8 that their only p!rpose was to confront Jaime re#ardin# his s!pposed affair with appellantSent!raCs wife% Johanna8 and that if they had tr!ly intended to ,ill Jaime% then appellant Sent!ra wo!ld nothave (othered to awa,en him% (!t wo!ld )!st have shot him in his sleep"

'0+@< T< !$. P"234" (G.R. N2. 1;9275) F(+)$* Tys mother was confined in ?anila 2octorCs +ospital to which a medical (ill amo!ntin# to ADD%DDD pesos was made to (e paid to TE% after si#nin# a contract of responsi(ility with the hospital" Ty% iss!ed N chec,s to cover the said e$penses% all of which were dishonored for (ein# drawn a#ainst a closed a acco!nt" ?anila 2octors +ospital then instit!ted criminal actions a#ainst Ty for violation of &'22"

-n her defense she alle#ed that she iss!ed the chec,s invol!ntarily (eca!se her mother threatened to commit s!icide d!e to the inh!mane treatment she alle#edly s!ffered while confined in the hospital" She f!rther claimed that no consideration was o(tained (y her (eca!se all the chec,s were made as payment to the medical (ills"

I$$%"* 0hether or not val!a(le consideration e$ists"

8"4,* .nder Section 2J of the 3e#otia(le -nstr!ments 1aw% it is pres!med that val!a(le consideration e$ist !pon the iss!ance of a chec, in the a(sence of evidence to the contrary"Sal!a(le consideration is any (enefit% interest or profit accr!in# to the party" The !se of the hospital facilities and services may (e deemed as s!ch" PEOPLE !. DELI=A 9;6 P>04. 738 (1922): 3ovem(er 1D% 2D1D Facts: 1oren@o 3apoleon escaped from )ail" 'oiiceman Felipe 2elima fo!nd him in the ho!se of Jor#e Ale#ria% armed with a pointed piece of (am(oo in the shape of a lance" 2elima ordered his s!rrender (!t 3apoleon answered with a stro,e of his lance" The policeman dod#ed it% fired his revolver (!t didnt hit 3apoleon" The criminal tried to ran away% not throwin# his weapon8 the policeman shot him dead" 2elima was tried and convicted for homicide8 he appealed" +eld: The SC r!led that 2elima m!st (e ac*!itted" The co!rt held that the ,illin# was done in performance of a d!ty" 3apoleon was !nder the o(li#ation to s!rrender and his diso(edience with a weapon compelled 2elima to ,ill him" The action was )!stified (y the circ!mstances" 'eople vs" /rnesto .lep M"R" no" 1:2 JN Septem(er 2D% 2DDD Facts: S'41 /rnest .lep is convicted for the m!rder of &!enavent!ra 0apili" +is case is a!tomatically elevated for review to the S!preme Co!rt d!e to the imposed penalty of death" 4n 2ecem(er 22% 1<< at aro!nd 2:DDam at ?!ndo# S!(division% 'o(lacion% Kidapawan% Cota(ato% &!enavent!ra 0apili was havin# a hi#h fever and was heard tal,in# insensi(ly to himself in his room" 2ario 1eydan% his (rotherFinFlaw% convinced him to come o!t and tal," &!t 0apili ref!sed" A little later% there was a dist!r(ance inside the room as if 0apili was smashin# the f!rnit!re% !ntil he was already r!nnin# witho!t any partic!lar direction as if completely #one cra@y" After several attempts to pacify 0apili% 1eydan went to another nei#h(or to solicit her help" The nei#h(or% 3orma 'lando was a policewoman who radioed S'41 /rnesto .lep% S'41 /dil(erto /spadera and S'42 Crispin 'illo" The three respondin# policemen% armed with ?F1A rifles% arrived aro!nd J:DDam" S'41 .lep fired a warnin# shot and told 0apili to p!t down his weapon or they wo!ld shoot him" +owever% 0apili ref!sed and instead advanced towards the police officers" At a(o!t two or three meters away% S'41 .lep shot vario!s parts of the victimWs (ody" As the victim sl!mped to the #ro!nd% S'41 .lep fired another (!llet into his head" An -nformation for m!rder was filed a#ainst S'41 .lep thro!#h the 4ffice of the 4m(!dsman for the ?ilitary" The acc!sed pleaded not #!ilty to the char#e and insisted that he

acted in selfFdefense" 4n 4cto(er 2N% 1<<N% the trial co!rt convicted the acc!sed of m!rder and sentenced him to death" -ss!e: 0hether or not the circ!mstance of f!lfillment of d!ty sho!ld (e appreciated in the case" 0hether or not the circ!mstance of selfFdefense is present" 0hether or not the *!alifyin# circ!mstance of treachery sho!ld (e appreciated in the case as to *!alify the offense from homicide to m!rder" +eld: -n order that the circ!mstance of f!lfillment of d!ty (e appreciated% two re*!isites m!st conc!r" First% that the appellant acted in the performance of a d!ty or is in the lawf!l e$ercise of a ri#ht or an office8 and second% that the in)!ry ca!sed or the offense committed is the necessary conse*!ence of the d!e performance of d!ty or the lawf!l e$ercise of s!ch ri#ht or office" -n the instance case% the second re*!isite is a(sent" 0hen he fatally shot the victim in the head even after the latter sl!mped to the #ro!nd cannot (e e$onerated" 4(vio!sly% it was !nnecessary even perhaps in his desire to ta,e no chances" For the appreciation of selfFdefense% the elements are: the e$istence of !nlawf!l a##ression on the part of the person in)!red or ,illed (y the acc!sed8 reasona(le necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it8 and the lac, of s!fficient provocation on the part of the person defendin# himself" -n the case% the records show that when the appellant fired while the victim was already lyin# on the #ro!nd affirmed the a(sence of a##ression" The first indispensa(le re*!isite for self defense (ein# a(sent is fatal to the claim" As to treachery% it is appreciated whenever the offender commits any of the crimes a#ainst persons% employin# means% methods% or forms in the e$ec!tion thereof which tend directly and specially to ins!re its e$ec!tion% witho!t ris, to himself arisin# from the defense which the offended party mi#ht ma,e" The acc!sed fired a warnin# shot in the air and specifically ordered the victim to lower his weapon" This shows that the appellant did not see, the ,illin# of 0apili on p!rpose" The appellantWs decision to ,ill was made in an instant and the victimWs helpless position was merely incidental to his havin# (een previo!sly shot" The presence of the incomplete )!stifyin# circ!mstance of f!lfillment of a d!ty or lawf!l e$ercise of a ri#ht is deemed a special or privile#ed miti#atin# circ!mstance" S!ch circ!mstance cannot (e offset (y a##ravatin# circ!mstances (!t also red!ces the penalty (y one or two de#rees than that prescri(ed (y law in accordance to Article A< of the R'C" F!rthermore% the co!rt credited in favor of the appellant the presence of the miti#atin# circ!mstance of vol!ntary s!rrender" The police (lotter shows that appellant immediately reported to the police head*!arters and vol!ntarily s!rrendered himself after the incident" -n appreciation of the incomplete )!stifyin# circ!mstance of f!lfillment of a d!ty or lawf!l e$ercise of a ri#ht lowered the penalty (y one de#ree from recl!sion temporal to prision mayor" The e$istence of the miti#atin# circ!mstance of vol!ntary s!rrender imposed the penalty of prision mayor in its minim!m period" The S!preme Co!rt held S'41 .lep #!ilty of +omicide instead of ?!rder" +e is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of J years% 2 months and 1D day of prision correccional medi!m as minim!m% to A years% J months and 2D days of prision mayor minim!m as ma$im!m" +e is f!rther ordered to indemnity the heirs of the victim in the amo!nt of ' D%DDD and to pay the costs"

G.R. N2. 1;666; F"5#%(#< 28, 2002 JO8N ANGCACO, Petitioner% vs" PEOPLE OF T8E P8ILIPPINES, Respondent. =ENDO&A, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision%1 dated 3ovem(er 2<% 2DDD% of the Co!rt of Appeals% which affirmed with modification the decision%2 dated Jan!ary :1% 1<<A% of the Re#ional Trial Co!rt% &ranch 1% '!erto 'rincesa City% findin# petitioner John An#caco #!ilty of m!rder and sentencin# him accordin#ly"

'etitioner John An#caco and his coFacc!sed in the trial co!rt% namely% Ramon 2ecosto% 'rotacio /dep% 1ydio 1ota% and ?ario Feli@arte% were mem(ers of the -nte#rated 3ational 'olice of Taytay% 'alawan" At the time of the incident% they were servin# a warrant of arrest iss!ed (y the ?!nicipal Trial Co!rt of Taytay on Restit!to &er#ante% who was wanted in connection with a ro((ery case" /dep was actin# station commander% while Restit!to &er#ante was the (aran#ay captain of &ato% Taytay% 'alawan" The information a#ainst petitioner and his coFacc!sed alle#ed F That on or a(o!t the 2 th day of Septem(er% 1<;D% more or less J:DD oCcloc, in the mornin# in (aran#ay &ato% m!nicipality of Taytay% province of 'alawan% 'hilippines% and within the )!risdiction of this +onora(le Co!rt% the a(oveFnamed acc!sed% conspirin# and confederatin# to#ether and m!t!ally helpin# one another% armed with #!ns% and with treachery and evident premeditation and with intent to ,ill% did then and there willf!lly% !nlawf!lly and felonio!sly attac,% assa!lt% fire at and shoot FR/22-/ MA3A3C-A1% hittin# the latter with #!nshots on vital parts of his (ody and inflictin# !pon him m!ltiple #!nshot wo!nds which were the direct and immediate ca!se of his instant death" : 0hen arrai#ned on J!ne :% 1<;1% all of the acc!sed% with the e$ception of Ramon 2ecosto% entered a plea of not #!ilty to the crime char#ed"J 2ecosto% who failed to attend the hearin# on that date% was later arrai#ned on J!ne 2:% 1<;1% d!rin# which he entered a plea of not #!ilty" Thereafter trial ens!ed" The prosec!tion presented seven witnesses: 3oe &er#ante% 3oel &er#ante% 2r" Al(erto 1im% +onorato Flores% +enry '!l#a% Antonio Arosio% and Adolfo Ja#mis" The #ist of their testimonies is as follows: At aro!nd J oCcloc, in the mornin# of Septem(er 2 % 1<;D% 3oe &er#ante and his (rother 3oel &er#ante and his co!sin Freddie Manancial were awa,ened (y the so!nd of #!nfire while they were asleep in their ho!se in &ato% Taytay% 'alawan" Their mother% who was fri#htened% fainted and had to (e helped (y 3oe" 3oel went to the ,itchen and% from there% saw 'rotacio /dep fire his car(ine% as he sho!ted% B<apitan% yo! come down% this is 9a> peace officer"B +e was apparently referrin# to Restit!to &er#ante" 3oel answered that his father was not in the ho!se% havin# #one to '!erto 'rincesa" /dep then ordered the men in the ho!se to come o!t" 3oel accordin#ly went to the #ate and later called 3oe to also come o!t of the ho!se" 3oe and his co!sin% Freddie Manancial% did as (idden" 4nce they were o!tside the ho!se% 3oe and Freddie were flan,ed (y petitioner An#caco on the ri#ht side and acc!sed Ramon 2ecosto on the left side" 2ecosto pointed an armalite at the two and warned them not to r!n" 3oe and Freddie )oined 3oel &er#ante" 'rotacio /dep approached Freddie sayin#% BEo! are to!#h%B and p!shed him" Then% shots ran# o!t from the armalite and short firearm of 2ecosto and /dep% as a res!lt of which Freddie Manancial t!rned aro!nd and dropped to the #ro!nd face down" 2ecosto was aro!nd three meters away from Freddie" -n fri#ht% 3oe and 3oel ran inside the ho!se" After a few seconds% 3oe saw% thro!#h the window% 1ota and An#caco t!rnin# over the (ody of Freddie Manancial" After (riefly leavin# the (ody% (oth came (ac, 1 min!tes later" 3oe said 1ota (ro!#ht with him an o()ect wrapped in a newspaper% which 3oe s!rmised was a ,nife" 1ota placed the o()ect in the ri#ht hand of Freddie Manancial" 3oel% on the other hand% said that he ret!rned to the crime scene and recovered two empty shells which he #ave to a certain ?a)or Silos" 3oe reported the matter to &aran#ay Tanods Sa(ino ?ahinay and a certain Ramon" A Antonio Arosio% a nei#h(or of the &er#antes% corro(orated the testimonies of 3oe and 3oel &er#ante" Accordin# to Arosio% at aro!nd J::D a"m" of Septem(er 2 % 1<;D% while he was asleep in his ho!se in &ato% Taytay% 'alawan% he was awa,ened (y the so!nd of #!nfire" +e said he heard a commotion o!tside% followed (y another volley of shots" +e claimed he reco#ni@ed (y their voices some of the persons involved% namely% 'rotacio /dep% 3oel &er#ante% and Freddie Manancial" Arosio claimed that acc!sed 2ecosto and Feli@arte fetched him from his ho!se a short time later and too, him to /dep% who was then in the ho!se of the (aran#ay captain" Arosio was as,ed a(o!t the wherea(o!ts of the (aran#ay captain" +e told /dep that Restit!to &er#ante% the (aran#ay captain% had #one to '!erto 'rincesa two days earlier" Arosio testified that on his way home he saw a person lyin# on the #ro!nd in a prone position" +e later learned it was Freddie Manancial" Arosio identified in co!rt the policemen whom he saw that mornin#% that is% /dep% 2ecosto% Feli@arte% 1ota% and An#caco" 4n crossFe$amination% Arosio claimed that he was investi#ated (y a police officer% whose name he co!ld not remem(er% three years after the incident" The investi#ation was held in the ho!se of &aran#ay Captain Restit!to &er#ante% who told him that he wo!ld testify in this case" Altho!#h he was rel!ctant to testify (eca!se of fear% Arosio said he finally a#reed to do so in 1<;J" 'rior to the incident% he had not heard /depCs voice (!t only ass!med that the voice he heard that mornin# was that of /dep as the latter was the hi#hestFran,in# policeman he later saw" N

Altho!#h 2r" Romeo 2" Salino cond!cted the postmortem e$amination on the (ody of Freddie Manancial% it fell to 2r" Al(erto +" 1im% Assistant 'rovincial +ealth 4fficer in 'alawan% to identify the medicoFle#al report of 2r" Salino and to e$plain its contents in view of 2r" SalinoCs death pendin# the trial of the case" 2r" SalinoCs report stated in pertinent parts: 'hysical /$amination: 1" M!nshot wo!nd lateral aspect 2H:rd arm ri#ht =entrance7 with cont!sion collar thr! and thr! passin# thr! the medial aspect arm ri#ht% enterin# to the lateral aspect mid a$illary line at the level of the < th ri( hittin# ascendin# colon and small intestine" 2" M!nshot wo!nd at the level of the Nth ri( at anterior a$illary line ri#ht with cont!sion collar =entrance7 to the epi#astric re#ion =e$it7 1D cm9s>" $ : cm9s>" hittin# the liver =mascerated7" :" M!nshot wo!nd s!(costal re#ion ri#ht at the level of mid clavic!lar line =entrance7 ri#ht side to the s!(costal re#ion left side =e$it at the level of mid mammary line7" J" Stomach with alcoholic smell" " Clotted (lood at a(dominal cavity% a(o!t DD cc" Ca!se of 2eath: F Shoc, secondary to internal and e$ternal hemorrha#e d!e to #!nshot wo!nds F (ody and a(domen" ; 2r" 1im identified the medical report si#ned (y 2r" Salino (eca!se he was familiar with the handwritin# of the latter" As re#ards the contents of the medical certificate% 2r" 1im stated that Freddie Manancial% alias /d#ar Malle#o% 2 years of a#e% died as a res!lt of shoc, secondary to internal and e$ternal hemorrha#e d!e to #!nshot wo!nds on the (ody and a(domen% which means that the victim died (eca!se of loss of (lood res!ltin# in shoc, d!e to a #!nshot wo!nd in the a(domen" +e testified that the victim s!stained three #!nshot wo!nds" The first #!nshot entered the (ody at the lateral aspect distal third arm with cont!sion collar% the (!llet enterin# the lateral aspect mida$illary line at the level of the ninth ri( and hittin# the colon and small intestine" The second #!nshot wo!nd was located at the ri#ht side of the (ody at the seventh ri( at ri#ht anterior a$illary line with cont!sion collar =entrance7% the (!llet passin# thro!#h the epi#astric re#ion and hittin# the liver% which was mascerated" The third #!nshot wo!nd was in the ri#ht s!(costal re#ion at the level of the midclavic!lar line =entrance7 ri#ht side to the left side of the s!(costal re#ion% the (!llet e$itin# (elow the nipple" 4n crossFe$amination% 2r" 1im said that (ased on the findin#s of the medical report% the victim had (een ta,in# li*!or prior to his death" +e also admitted that he had not !nderta,en st!dies on the identification of handwritin#" 2r" 1im claimed that he identified the si#nat!re of 2r" Salino in the medical report on the (asis of the other reports the latter had s!(mitted to their office"< +onorato Flores% senior (allistician of the 3ational &!rea! of -nvesti#ation =3&-7 in ?anila% identified the (allistics report he had prepared and the shell fra#ments presented to him for e$amination" +e said that the fra#ments co!ld have possi(ly (een ca!sed (y the impact of the (!llet on a h!man (ein#" 0hen crossFe$amined% Flores said that no armalite rifle was #iven to him (!t only shell fra#ments were presented to him for e$amination" +e said that the #!n and the lead wo!ld have to (e e$amined (y !sin# the (!llet comparison microscope to determine whether the lead was fired from the same #!n" A (one or a cement floorin# co!ld have ca!sed the shell fra#ments to (rea,% accordin# to Flores" .pon in*!iry (y the trial co!rt% he said it was possi(le that a piece of copper and the lead formed part of one (!llet% (!t it was also possi(le that they did not" 1D S#t" +enry '!l#a% actin# station commander of Taytay% 'alawan% testified that on 4cto(er A% 1<;D% he investi#ated the complaint filed (y &aran#ay Captain &er#ante re#ardin# the ,illin# of the latterCs nephew% Freddie Manancial" +e identified the affidavits of ?ario Feli@arte =/$h" +7 and Ramon 2ecosto =/$h" -7% which he himself prepared" Accordin# to '!l#a% he informed Feli@arte and 2ecosto of their ri#hts to co!nsel and to remain silent and e$plained to them the import of these ri#hts" +e said that Feli@arte and 2ecosto vol!ntarily #ave their statements (efore him% altho!#h '!l#a also admitted that the two did not have co!nsel to assist them d!rin# the investi#ation" 11

The last witness for the prosec!tion was Adolfo 2" Ja#mis% the chief investi#ator of the 'alawan Consta(!lary (ased in Tini#!i(an" +e testified that on 4cto(er A% 1<;D he investi#ated /dep% 1ota% and An#caco" +e said that after An#caco was apprised of his constit!tional ri#hts% the latter e$ec!ted a statement =/$h" J7% 12 which Ja#mis identified in co!rt" &!t Ja#mis admitted that the statement was made witho!t the assistance of co!nsel" 1: 4n crossFe$amination (y co!nsel for acc!sed 2ecosto% Ja#mis was confronted with the affidavit of An#caco% in which the latter identified an armalite which he alle#edly !sed at the time of the incident" Ja#mis said the armalite and the lead recovered from the scene were (oth #iven to the 'rovincial FiscalCs 4ffice" The defense presented as its witnesses 'rotacio /dep% Ramon 2ecosto% John An#caco% and 1ydio 1ota% whose testimonies are as follows: -n the early mornin# of Septem(er 2 % 1<;D% petitioner and his coFacc!sed% led (y /dep% went to the ho!se of Restit!to &er#ante in &ato% Taytay% 'alawan to serve a warrant for the latterCs arrest" 0hen they reached the ho!se% /dep and his men too, positions as they had (een warned that Restit!to &er#ante mi#ht resist arrest" 2ecosto and An#caco were each armed with armalites% 1ota had a car(ine% Feli@arte a revolver% and /dep a car(ine and a revolver" 2ecosto was on the left side of /dep% aro!nd seven to 1D meters from the latter" An#caco% on the other hand% was on ri#ht side of /dep% aro!nd fo!r to seven meters from the latter" /dep called Restit!to &er#ante to come o!t of the ho!se as he =/dep7 had a warrant for his arrest" Restit!toCs wife replied that her h!s(and was not in the ho!se% havin# #one to '!erto 'rincesa" A commotion then too, place inside the ho!se and% shortly after% petitioner saw a man comin# down the ho!se" They fired warnin# shots to stop the man% (!t petitioner saw another person with a (olo near /dep" +e sho!ted% BSar#e% this is the man who tried to hac, yo!T%B and shot the !nidentified man% who fell to the #ro!nd face !p" At the time of the incident% 2ecosto was on the left side of /dep% while petitioner% Feli@arte% and 1ota were on the ri#ht side of /dep" They later learned that the person ,illed was Freddie Manancial" /dep cond!cted an investi#ation and recovered from the scene of the crime empty shells from armalite (!llets% which he t!rned over to the provincial fiscal" /dep and his men were then ta,en to Taytay and investi#ated (y 'HS#t" Adolfo Ja#mis" Thereafter% /dep and his men learned that they were char#ed with m!rder" An administrative complaint for #rave miscond!ct was li,ewise filed a#ainst them in the 3ational 'olice Commission% (!t the case was dismissed" 1J 4n Jan!ary :1% 1<<A% the trial co!rt rendered a decision% the dispositive portion of which reads: 0+/R/F4R/% after a caref!l eval!ation of the evidence on record% this co!rt is of the considered opinion% and so holds% that acc!sed John An#caco% is M.-1TE (eyond reasona(le do!(t of the crime of ?!rder defined and penali@ed in Article 2J; of the Revised 'enal Code" 0ith the presence of the miti#atin# circ!mstance of lac, of intention to commit so #rave a wron# and with the application of the -ndeterminate Sentence 1aw% this Co!rt here(y imposes !pon him the penalty of imprisonment ran#in# from seventeen =1N7 years and fo!r =J7 months of recl!sion temporal as minim!m% to twenty =2D7 years of recl!sion temporal% as ma$im!m% and to pay the heirs of Freddie Manancial the amo!nt of fifty tho!sand pesos =' D%DDD"DD7 as death indemnity" CoFacc!sed 'rotacio /dep% Ramon 2ecosto% 1ydio 1ota and ?ario Feli@arte are ordered AC5.-TT/2 for ins!fficiency of evidence"1 'etitioner An#caco filed an appeal with the Co!rt of Appeals% which affirmed with modification the trial co!rtCs decision" The dispositive portion of the Co!rt of Appeals decision reads: 0+/R/F4R/% with the modification only that the miti#atin# circ!mstance of incomplete f!lfillment of a lawf!l d!ty sho!ld (e appreciated in determinin# the imposa(le penalty% not lac, of intention to commit so #rave a wron#% the trial co!rt had correctly imposed the penalty of imprisonment ran#in# from seventeen =1N7 years and fo!r =J7 months of recl!sion temporalas minim!m% to twenty =2D7 years of recl!sion temporal as ma$im!m the *!estioned decision is affirmed in all other respects" Costs a#ainst the acc!sed" S4 4R2/R/2"1A +ence this appeal" 'etitioner raises the followin# iss!es F

-" 0+/T+/R 4R 34T T+/ C4.RT 4F A''/A1S 4S/R144K/2 A32H4R ?-SC43STR./2 T+/ /S-2/3C/ F4R T+/ 2/F/3S/ T+AT A11 T+/ /1/?/3TS 4F 2/F/3S/ 4F 9T+/> '/RS43 4R R-M+TS 4F A STRA3M/R AR/ 'R/S/3T" --" 0+/T+/R 4R 34T 2./ 'R4C/SS 4R T+/ R-M+TS 4F '/T-T-43/RFACC.S/2 +AS &//3 S-41AT/2 0+/3 T+/ +434RA&1/ C4.RT 4F A''/A1S 4S/R144K/2 4R FA-1/2 T4 A''R/C-AT/ T+/ 0/AK3/SS 4F T+/ 'R4S/C.T-43CS /S-2/3C/ A32 -TS FA-1.R/ T4 /STA&1-S+ +-S M.-1T &/E432 R/AS43A&1/ 24.&T" ---" 0+/T+/R 4R 34T T+/ A''/11AT/ C4.RT /RR/2 -3 34T AC5.-TT-3M 9'/T-T-43/R> A''/11A3T" 1N =irst. 'etitioner An#caco ar#!es that the prosec!tion evidence failed to prove his #!ilt (eyond reasona(le do!(t" +e points o!t inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies and affidavits of prosec!tion witnesses 3oel and 3oe &er#ante" 0e a#ree with acc!sedFappellantCs contention" Menerally% contradictions (etween the contents of the witnessC affidavit and his testimony in co!rt do not impair his credi(ility (eca!se affidavits are !s!ally ta,en e$ parte and% for that reason% often incomplete and inacc!rate"1;An affidavit will not always disclose all the facts and will even at times% witho!t (ein# noticed (y the witness% inacc!rately descri(e the occ!rrences related therein" Th!s% we have time and a#ain held that affidavits are #enerally inferior to testimonies in co!rt" Affidavits are often prepared only (y the investi#ator witho!t the affiant or witness havin# a fair opport!nity to narrate in f!ll the incident which too, place% whereas in open co!rt% the latter is s!()ected to crossFe$amination (y co!nsel for the acc!sed"1< +owever% where the discrepancies (etween the affidavit and the witnessC testimony on the stand are irreconcila(le and !ne$plained and they refer to material iss!es% s!ch inconsistencies may well reflect on the witnessC candor and even honesty and th!s impair his credi(ility" 2D +ence% we have reco#ni@ed as e$ceptions to the #eneral r!le instances where the narration in the sworn statement s!(stantially contradicts the testimony in co!rt or where the omission in the affidavit refers to a s!(stantial detail which an eyewitness% had he (een present at the scene at the time of the commission of the crime% co!ld not have failed to mention"21 The case at (ar is s!ch an instance" 3oe &er#ante pointed to 2ecosto and /dep as the ones who shot Freddie Manancial" 22 +owever% in his affidavit% dated 3ovem(er 2J% 1<;D% 3oe pointed to 2ecosto as the lone assailant" 3oe also failed to mention the presence of An#caco at the scene at the time of the commission of the crime" 2: 3oe tried to e$plain these material omissions in his affidavit (y claimin# that he mentioned these details to the fiscal (!t the latter m!st have for#otten to incl!de them in the affidavit (eca!se he =the fiscal7 was in a h!rry to leave that day" 2J This e$planation is too pat to (e accepted" To (e#in with% 3oe admitted that the investi#atin# fiscal% Fiscal Ser#ara% e$plained to him the contents of the affidavit (efore he =3oe7 si#ned it"2 3oe% therefore% co!ld have noticed the omission of s!ch vital matters which concerned the identification of the persons responsi(le for his co!sinCs death and called attention to s!ch omission" The identity of the malefactors is too important a detail for anyone who alle#edly witnessed the incident to overloo, its omission in the very statement of the incident one is #ivin#" The omissions s!##est 3oeCs i#norance of the details of the incident as well as his readiness to per)!re himself in order to implicate all of the acc!sed in this case" 3oel &er#ante fared no (etter than his (rother on the witness stand" 4n direct e$amination% 3oel% li,e his (rother% identified /dep and 2ecosto as the assailants of Freddie Manancial"2A +owever% 3oelCs affidavit% dated 3ovem(er 2J% 1<;D% only mentioned 2ecosto as the person responsi(le for the ,illin# of Freddie Manancial" 2N 0orse% 3oel e$ec!ted an affidavit earlier on Septem(er 2A% 1<;D% in which he identified Jardiolin%2; ?ario Toledo% 1ydio 1ota% and ?ario Mon@ales as the companions of 2ecosto at the time of the commission of the crime" 2< &!t% in his testimony% 3oel said that 2ecostoCs companions were /dep% An#caco% Feli@arte% and 1ota":D 0hen confronted with the discrepancy% 3oel said that he really meant to refer to An#caco% instead of Jardiolin% and to Ramon 2ecosto instead of Toledo" 0hen f!rther *!estioned% 3oel said that he was referrin# to 1ota when he mentioned the name of Toledo% :1 th!s creatin# more conf!sion with his answers" These contradictions% when ta,en to#ether with 3oelCs claim that he had ,nown Jardiolin% Feli@arte% and An#caco for a lon# time% cast serio!s do!(ts on his credi(ility" Th!s% prosec!tion witnesses 3oel and 3oe &er#ante failed to #ive a credi(le and consistent acco!nt of the identity of the person or persons responsi(le for the ,illin# of Freddie Manancial" There is apparent from a readin# of their testimonies a manifest tendency to improvise% modify% and even contradict themselves in order to implicate each of the acc!sed" -t is in fact do!(tf!l whether 3oe and 3oel saw what they testified a(o!t" /ven the trial co!rt disre#arded the testimonies of 3oe and 3oel &er#ante and ac*!itted /dep and 2ecosto in spite of their identification (y these witnesses" 0e are th!s left with no clear pict!re of the events that transpired on Septem(er 2 % 1<;D and of the identity of the shooter or shooters" -t cannot (e overemphasi@ed that the constit!tional pres!mption of innocence demands not only that the prosec!tion prove that a crime has (een committed (!t% more importantly% the identity of the person or persons who committed the crime":2 &!t in the case at (ar% what passed for the prosec!tion evidence was a (ef!ddlin# amal#amation of halfFtr!ths and lies o(vio!sly fa(ricated (y these s!pposed eyewitnesses to hold responsi(le each of the acc!sed in this

case for the ,illin# of their co!sin" For this reason% we hold that the prosec!tion evidence failed to meet the *!ant!m of proof (eyond reasona(le do!(t necessary for conviction in a criminal case" 6econd. The conviction of petitioner An#caco m!st% however% (e !pheld in view of his admission that he shot Freddie Manancial" The r!le is that while the prosec!tion has the (!rden of esta(lishin# the #!ilt of the acc!sed% once the defendant admits commission of the act char#ed% altho!#h he invo,es a )!stification for its commission% the (!rden of proof is shifted to him to prove the said )!stifyin# circ!mstance":: 'etitioner An#caco cannot rely on the wea,ness of the evidence for the prosec!tion% for even if it is wea,% it cannot (e dis(elieved after he has admitted the ,illin# itself" :J This is (eca!se a )!dicial confession constit!tes evidence of a hi#h order" -t is pres!med that no sane person wo!ld deli(erately confess to the commission of an act !nless moved (y the desire to reveal the tr!th" : 'etitioner claims that he acted in defense of S#t" 'rotacio /dep% whom Freddie Manancial was a(o!t to stri,e with a (olo" 0e do not a#ree" For petitioner to s!ccessf!lly claim the (enefit of Art" 11% par" : of the Revised 'enal Code% there m!st (e proof of the followin# elements: =17 !nlawf!l a##ression8 =27 reasona(le necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it8 and =:7 the person defendin# (e not ind!ced (y reven#e% resentment% or other evil motive" .nlawf!l a##ression on the part of the victim% which m!st (e s!fficiently proven (y the defense% :A is present when there is act!al or imminent peril to oneCs life% lim(% or ri#ht" There m!st (e act!al physical force or act!al !se of a weapon (y the victim himself":N -n this case% it is contended that the victim% who was armed with a (olo% approached /dep menacin#ly" &!t% there is no other competent evidence to corro(orate this selfFservin# claim" /dep testified that he heard petitionerCs warnin# that an armed man was (ehind him":;+owever% when as,ed a(o!t the weapon alle#edly held (y the victim% /dep replied that he did not see any as he t!rned aro!nd to face his s!pposed assailant":< -t was only later that /dep claimed seein# a ,nife in the area where the victim fell"JD 4ne is th!s led to s!spect that /depCs claim that he saw a ,nife was a mere aftertho!#ht desi#ned to e$c!lpate his fellow officer from the char#es a#ainst him" 'etitionerCs own testimony s!ffers from inconsistencies and impro(a(ilities on material points" First% there was no reason for the victim% Freddie Manancial% to attac, S#t" /dep% who was loo,in# for Restit!to% (eca!se the latter was not there in his ho!se% havin# earlier #one to '!erto 'rincesa" -n fact% /dep admitted he was a(o!t to order his men to leave the premises when they fo!nd that their *!arry was not there" The victim himself was not wanted (y the police" 2r" 1im said Manancial was dr!n," -n that condition% he co!ld have easily have (een overpowered (y any mem(er of the arrestin# team% if he made any a##ressive move% witho!t shootin# him to prevent him from doin# harm to the latter" Second% when crossFe$amined a(o!t the (olo% petitioner said he co!ld not remem(er who too, it away" J1 +owever% at a later hearin#% petitioner stated that it was he who pic,ed !p the (olo and t!rned it over to /dep% his s!perior officer" J2 &!t how co!ld he not remem(er who too, the (olo if he was the one who did soO 4nce a#ain% petitioner was prevaricatin#" Third% petitioner said that he merely intended to fire a warnin# shot when he saw Manancial" This claim is (elied (y the fact that the victim s!stained three #!nshot wo!nds on the chest and a(domen" -t is apparent that petitioner intended to ,ill the victim and not merely to warn him" -ndeed% even ass!min# that the victim was char#in# at S#t" /dep% it wo!ld have (een s!fficient for petitioner to warn S#t" /dep of the dan#er" 3ot that petitioner was not e$pected to pa!se for a moment while his collea#!e was in dan#er"J: +owever% the r!les of en#a#ement do not% on the other hand% re*!ire that he sho!ld immediately draw or fire his weapon if the person accosted did not heed his call"JJ &!t rather than confront the victim as to his intended p!rpose% petitioner immediately shot the former witho!t f!rther tho!#ht" 'etitioner claims the victim was armed with a (olo" The circ!mstances% however% indicate otherwise" 'etitioner was *!estioned (y the prosec!tor on the e$istence of the (olo d!rin# the hearin# held on 4cto(er N% 1<;A" The (olo was presented in co!rt only on 4cto(er 1N% 1<;A" At the hearin# on that date% petitioner and 1ydio 1ota (oth claimed that they co!ld identify the (olo (y the mar,in#s placed on it (y S#t" /dep" J &!t S#t" /dep made no mention of havin# recovered a (olo% m!ch less of mar,in# it" -n fact% /dep at one point testified that he did not see any weapon near the victim" -t is do!(tf!l% therefore% that the (olo offered in evidence (y the defense was the one act!ally recovered from the scene of the crime"JA -t is more li,ely that the idea to offer the (olo in *!estion was a mere aftertho!#ht (y the defense (ro!#ht a(o!t (y the fiscalCs own reminder that the presentation of the weapon was cr!cial to petitionerCs plea of defense of stran#er" JN 3or can petitionerCs claim that the ,illin# was done in f!lfillment of a lawf!l d!ty (e s!stained% as the Co!rt of Appeals r!led" For this )!stifyin# circ!mstance to (e appreciated% the followin# m!st (e esta(lished: =17 that the offender acted in the lawf!l e$ercise of a ri#ht or a d!ty8 and =(7 that the in)!ry or offense committed (e the necessary conse*!ence of the d!e performance of s!ch ri#ht or office"J;

-n this case% the mission of petitioner and his collea#!es was to effect the arrest of Restit!to &er#ante" As /dep himself e$plained% the standard proced!re in ma,in# an arrest was% first% to identify themselves as police officers and to show the warrant to the arrestee and to inform him of the char#e a#ainst him% and% second% to ta,e the arrestee !nder c!stody" J< &!t% it was not shown here that the ,illin# of Manancial was in f!rtherance of s!ch d!ty" 3o evidence was presented (y the defense to prove that Manancial attempted to prevent petitioner and his fellow officers from arrestin# Restit!to &er#ante" There was in fact no clear evidence as to how Freddie Manancial was shot" -ndeed% as already stated% any attempt (y the victim to arrest the wanted person was pointless as Restit!to &er#ante was not in his ho!se" As re#ards the second re*!isite% there can (e no *!estion that the ,illin# of Freddie Manancial was not a necessary conse*!ence of the arrest to (e made on Restit!to &er#ante" Reliance (y the Co!rt of Appeals on the case of People /. anis D is misplaced" -n anis% the acc!sed% who were police officers% shot and ,illed the victim !nder the erroneo!s notion that the latter was the person they were char#ed to arrest" The Co!rt held that the first re*!isite F that the offenders acted in performance of a lawf!l d!ty F was present (eca!se the offenders% tho!#h over@ealo!s in the performance of their d!ty% tho!#ht that they were in fact ,illin# the man they have (een ordered to ta,e into c!stody dead or alive" -n this case% petitioner did not present evidence that he mistoo, Freddie Manancial for Restit!to &er#ante and% therefore% ,illed him =Manancial7 perhaps (eca!se he placed the lives of the arrestin# officers in dan#er" 8hird. 4n the other hand% we thin, the Co!rt of Appeals erred in appreciatin# the *!alifyin# circ!mstance of treachery a#ainst petitioner" There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes a#ainst the person% employin# means% methods% or forms in the e$ec!tion thereof which tend directly and specially to ins!re its e$ec!tion% witho!t ris, to himself arisin# from the defense which the offended party mi#ht ta,e" 1 For treachery to e$ist% two conditions m!st (e present: =17 there m!st (e employment of means of e$ec!tion that #ives the person attac,ed no opport!nity to defend himself or to retaliate8 and =27 the means of e$ec!tion were deli(erately or conscio!sly adopted" 2 As has (een disc!ssed% the testimonies of prosec!tion witnesses 3oe and 3oel &er#ante cannot (e #iven credence" As we already stated% even the trial co!rt ac*!itted acc!sed 2ecosto and /dep% (oth of whom were implicated as the assailants" 0itho!t evidence of the manner the a##ression was made or how the act res!ltin# in the death of the victim (e#an and developed% it is not possi(le to appreciate the *!alifyin# circ!mstance of treachery" : 3or can evident premeditation (e appreciated in this case" /vident premeditation re*!ires proof of the followin# elements: =17 the time when the acc!sed decided to commit the crime8 =27 an overt act manifestly indicatin# that he has cl!n# to his determination8 and =:7 a s!fficient lapse of time (etween decision and e$ec!tion to allow the acc!sed to reflect !pon the conse*!ences of his act" J 3one of these elements has (een shown in this case" For the fore#oin# reasons% petitioner is lia(le only for homicide% for which the penalty !nder Art" 2J< of the Revised 'enal Code isreclusion temporal. As neither miti#atin# nor a##ravatin# circ!mstances attended the commission of the crime% the penalty m!st (e imposed in its medi!m period% p!rs!ant to Art" AJ=17 of the Revised 'enal Code" Applyin# the -ndeterminate Sentence 1aw% the minim!m imposa(le penalty on acc!sedFappellant falls within the ran#e of the penalty ne$t lower in de#ree% i.e.% prision mayor% or from si$ =A7 years and one =17 day to twelve =127 years . Accordin#ly% the penalty to (e imposed on acc!sedFappellant m!st (e fi$ed within the ran#e ofprision mayor% or from si$ =A7 years and one =17 day to twelve years =127 years% as minim!m% to reclusion temporal medi!m% or from fo!rteen =1J7 years% ei#ht =;7 months% and one =17 day to seventeen =1N7 years and fo!r =J7 months% as ma$im!m" 'etitioner sho!ld also (e made to pay the heirs of the victim% Freddie Manancial% the amo!nt of ' D%DDD"DD as moral dama#es% in addition to the amo!nt of ' D%DDD"DD awarded (y the trial co!rt and the Co!rt of Appeals as indemnity" A The p!rpose of ma,in# s!ch an award of moral dama#es is not to enrich the heirs of the victim (!t to compensate them for in)!ries to their feelin#s" N ?8EREFORE% the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals% dated 3ovem(er 2<% 2DDD% is AFFIR=ED with the =ODIFICATION that petitioner is fo!nd #!ilty of the crime of homicide and is sentenced to s!ffer the penalty of ei#ht =;7 years and one =17 day of prision mayor% as minim!m% to fo!rteen =1J7 years% ei#ht =;7 months% and one =17 day of reclusion temporal% as ma$im!m% and to pay the heirs of the victim% Freddie Manancial% ' D%DDD"DD as civil indemnity and ' D%DDD"DD as moral dama#es" SO ORDERED. M"R" 34" 1 DAJN% S/'T/?&/R 2<% 2DDJ R40/34 '4?4E SS" '/4'1/ 4F T+/ '+-1-''-3/S 1"7 3AT.R/ 4F T+/ CAS/: J.ST-FE-3M XACC-2/3TY This case was reviewed (y the S!preme Co!rt% wherein the S!preme Co!rt reversed the decision of the RTC of -loilo and

the Co!rt of appeals findin# the petitioner #!ilty of the crime of homicide" 2"7 FACTS That on Jan!ary J% 1<<D% the petitioner armed with "J service pistol arrested the victim in connection with a ro((ery which too, place in the m!nicipality in 2ecem(er 1<;<" The victim was detained in the )ail% alon# with another s!spect in the ro((ery case" 1ater that day% the petitioner went near the door of the )ail and directed the victim to come o!t for tactical interro#ation at the investi#ation room" At that time% the petitioner had a #!n% a "J cali(er pistol% t!c,ed in a holster which was han#in# at the side of his (elt" The #!n was f!lly em(edded in the holster% with only the handle of the #!n protr!din# from the holster" 0hen petitioner and the victim reached the main (!ildin# and when near the investi#ation room% 2 #!nshots were heard" 0hen the so!rce of the shot were verified% petitioner was still holdin# a "J cali(er pistol% facin# the victim% who was lyin# in the pool of (lood a(o!t 2 feet away" 0hen the Commandin# 4fficer of the +ead*!arter arrived% he disarmed the petitioner and directed that the victim (e (ro!#ht to the hospital" 2r" 'alma who happened to (e at the crime scene e$amined the victim and advised them that it was !nnecessary to (rin# the victim to the hospital (eca!se he was dead" .pon the re*!est of the wife of the victim% the victim was e$amined and the medicoFle#al officer testified that 2 wo!nds fo!nd on the victims (ody were #!nshot wo!nds" &oth RTC and CA discredited the petitioners claimed that the death of the victim res!lted from accident and selfFdefense" Th!s% the petitioner was held lia(le for the crime of homicide" :"7 -SS./H-SS./S 1"7 0hether the shootin# of the victim was the res!lt of an accident" 2"7 0hether the petitioner was a(le to prove selfFdefense" J"7 R.1-3MH+412-3MS 1st iss!e: Accident is an e$emptin# circ!mstance !nder Article 12 of the Revised 'enal Code: BArticle 12" Circ!mstances which e$empt from criminal lia(ility" Z The followin# are e$empt from criminal lia(ility: J" Any person who% while performin# a lawf!l act with d!e care% ca!ses an in)!ry (y mere accident witho!t fa!lt or intent of ca!sin# it"B /$emption from criminal lia(ility proceeds from a findin# that the harm to the victim was not d!e to the fa!lt or ne#li#ence of the acc!sed% (!t to circ!mstances that co!ld not have (een foreseen or controlled" Th!s% in determinin# whether an BaccidentB attended the incident% co!rts m!st ta,e into acco!nt the d!al standards of lac, of intent to ,ill and a(sence of fa!lt or ne#li#ence" This determination inevita(ly (rin#s to the fore the main *!estion in the present case: was petitioner in control of the "J cali(er pistol at the very moment the shots were firedO The elements of accident are as follows: 17 the acc!sed was at the time performin# a lawf!l act with d!e care8 27 the res!ltin# in)!ry was ca!sed (y mere accident8 and :7 on the part of the acc!sed% there was no fa!lt or no intent to ca!se the in)!ry" From the facts% it is clear that all these elements were present" At the time of the incident% petitioner was a mem(er FF specifically% one of the investi#ators FF of the 'hilippine 3ational 'olice ='3'7 stationed at the -loilo 'rovincial ?o(ile Force Company" Th!s% it was in the lawf!l performance of his d!ties as investi#atin# officer that% !nder the instr!ctions of his s!perior% he fetched the victim from the latters cell for a ro!tine interro#ation" A#ain% it was in the lawf!l performance of his d!ty as a law enforcer that petitioner tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim s!ddenly tried to remove it from his holster" As an enforcer of the law% petitioner was d!tyF(o!nd to prevent the snatchin# of his service weapon (y anyone% especially (y a detained person in his c!stody" S!ch weapon was li,ely to (e !sed to facilitate escape and to ,ill or maim persons in the vicinity% incl!din# petitioner himself" 'etitioner cannot (e fa!lted for ne#li#ence" +e e$ercised all the necessary preca!tions to prevent his service weapon from ca!sin# accidental harm to others" As he so assid!o!sly maintained% he had ,ept his service #!n loc,ed when he left his ho!se8 he ,ept it inside its holster at all times% especially within the premises of his wor,in# area" At no instance d!rin# his testimony did the acc!sed admit to any intent to ca!se in)!ry to the deceased% m!ch less ,ill him" F!rthermore% 3icostrato /stepar% the #!ard in char#e of the detention of the victim% did not testify to any (ehavior on the part of petitioner that wo!ld indicate the intent to harm the victim while (ein# fetched from the detention cell" The participation of petitioner% if any% in the victims death was limited only to acts committed in the co!rse of the lawf!l performance of his d!ties as an enforcer of the law" The removal of the #!n from its holster% the release of the safety loc,% and the firin# of the two s!ccessive shots FF all of which led to the death of the victim FF were s!fficiently demonstrated to

have (een conse*!ences of circ!mstances (eyond the control of petitioner" At the very least% these fact!al circ!mstances create serio!s do!(t on the latters c!lpa(ility" 2nd iss!e: 'etitioner advanced selfFdefense as an alternative" Mrantin# ar#!endo that he intentionally shot the victim% he claims he did so to protect his life and lim( from real and immediate dan#er" SelfFdefense is inconsistent with the e$emptin# circ!mstance of accident% in which there is no intent to ,ill" 4n the other hand% selfFdefense necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to ,ill in order to defend oneself from imminent dan#er" Apparently% the fatal shots in the instant case did not occ!r o!t of any conscio!s or premeditated effort to overpower% maim or ,ill the victim for the p!rpose of selfFdefense a#ainst any a##ression8 rather% they appeared to (e the spontaneo!s and accidental res!lt of (oth parties attempts to possess the firearm" Since the death of the victim was the res!lt of an accidental firin# of the service #!n of petitioner FF an e$emptin# circ!mstance as defined in Article 12 of the Revised 'enal Code FF a f!rther disc!ssion of whether the assailed acts of the latter constit!ted lawf!l selfFdefense is !nnecessary" 0+/R/F4R/% the 'etition is MRA3T/2 and the assailed 2ecision R/S/RS/2" 'etitioner is AC5.-TT/2" 3(,044( !$ +( facts: the petitioners% roy padilla% inc!m(ent m!nicipal mayor and the rest (ein# policemen e$cept one% too, advanta#e of their p!(lic positions (y means of threat% force and violence when they prevented Antonio ver#ara and his family to open their stall in the '!(lic ?ar,et" they then (r!tally demolished and destroyed said stall and f!rnit!res therein% and carryin# away the #oods%wares and merchandise" the CF- rendered a decision findin# them #!ilty (eyond reasona(le do!(t of the crime of #rave coercion8 respondent herein appealed" CA modified the )!d#ement ac*!ittin# petitioners (eyond reasona(le do!(t% (!t are ordered to pay )ointly and severally to complainants act!al dama#es" iss!e:043 the CA committed a reversi(le error in re*!irin# petitioners to pay civil lia(ility after ac*!ittin# them from criminal char#e" held: the petitioners were ac*!itted on the #ro!nd that their #!ilt has not (een proven (eyond reasona(le do!(t" s!ch ac*!ittal will not (ar a civil case for dama#es arisin# from the demolition of the petitionerCs satll in the mar,et" the ac*!ittal refers to the element of #rave coercion and not on the fact that the stalls were not demolished" the e$tinction of criminal penal action carries with it the e$tinction of civil action only if there is a declaration that the facts from which the civil lia(ility may arise did not e$ist"