G.R. No. 157201 - Gotis vs. People

Parties and procedural posture
Nemrod Gotis (petitioner) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
The petition sought the annulment of the August 30, 2002 Decision and February 12, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 22536, entitled People of the Philippines v. Nemrod Gotis.
The CA decision affirmed the October 29, 1997 Decision of the Irosin, Sorsogon Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, convicting petitioner of homicide.
The CA resolution denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court found the petition partly meritorious and modified the CA disposition on penalty.

Events leading to the death of Serafin Gotis
On October 21, 1990, at around six o’clock in the evening, petitioner Nemrod Gotis and his brother Nahom arrived at Eddie Bautista’s coconut plantation in Barangay Bonga, Bulan, Sorsogon, looking for Serafin Gotis.
At the plantation at that time were Serafin’s wife Carmen and their daughter Nilda.
Petitioner and Nahom, both armed with bolos, angrily approached Carmen and Nilda and asked where Serafin was.
Serafin could not be found.
Nahom pointed his bolo at Nilda and said, “We will kill your father!”
After petitioner and Nahom left the plantation, Carmen and Nilda went to the house of Adolfo Malinao to wait for Serafin.
When Serafin arrived, Carmen told him what had happened and prevented him from going home.
Serafin disregarded Carmen’s warning and insisted on going home.

Confrontation at Nahom’s house gate and subsequent acts
On the way home, Serafin and his family had to pass by Nahom’s house.
Upon reaching the gate of Nahom’s house, Serafin called for Nahom and asked him to come out.
When Nahom heard Serafin’s shouts, Nahom immediately called petitioner for help.
Petitioner came over and advised Serafin to go home, but Serafin refused to leave.
Instead, Serafin attempted to hack petitioner and tried to enter the gate of Nahom’s house.
Nahom then struck Serafin on the head with a bolo.
Petitioner entered Nahom’s house to look for a bolo.
After being hit, Serafin ran away.
Petitioner pursued Serafin and hit him several times on the back and arm.
Carmen, following Serafin, saw the incident and cried for help.
Serafin’s brother Jose responded, but before he could help, petitioner poked a Batangas knife on Jose’s neck.
Jose parried the blow with his arm.
Petitioner then ran away.
Serafin was brought to a hospital in Irosin, Sorsogon, but he eventually died during treatment.

Information and petitioner’s admission
On January 16, 1991, the Information charged that on or about October 21, 1990, at about seven o’clock in the evening in Barangay Bonga, Bulan, Sorsogon, petitioner and his brother conspired and mutually helped one another, armed with bolos, with intent to kill, attacking Serafin Gotis with treachery and evident premeditation in different parts of his body, causing his death.
Petitioner admitted having killed Serafin.
Petitioner claimed the justifying circumstance of self-defense and alleged that he hit Serafin to defend himself against Serafin’s attack.

RTC proceedings and judgment
The RTC rendered its October 29, 1997 Decision convicting both Nahom Gotis and Nemrod Gotis of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
For Nahom Gotis, the RTC appreciated mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and defense of relative.
The RTC sentenced Nahom to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months of arresto mayor maximum as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum as maximum, and ordered him to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Serafin Gotis in the amount of P50,000.00 and pay the costs.
For Nemrod Gotis, the RTC credited mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation and voluntary surrender.
Applying Article 64 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, the RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium as maximum.
The RTC award for damages included P50,000.00 as indemnity for death and did not impose additional actual damages in the RTC decision as described in the record portion quoted in the CA’...(Subscriber-Only)

Reviewability and controlling questions
Whether the petition under Rule 45 properly raised questions of law rather than questions of fact regarding self-defense and the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation.

Self-defense
Whether the CA gravely erred in affirming with modification the RTC decision by disregarding petitioner’s plea of self-defense.
Whether the CA correctly held that unlawful aggression was absent at the time petitioner attacked Serafin, considering that Serafin had run away and petitioner pursued and struck him thereafter.

Mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation
Whether the CA correctly denied petitioner the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the ground that it was incompatible with the finding that petitioner did not act in self-defense.

(Subscriber-Only)