Case Digest (G.R. No. 205316)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Romeo De Castro and Randolf Pabanil, G.R. No. 205316, June 29, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Romeo De Castro and Randolf Pabanil (with two others, Eric De Castro and Roland Pabanil) with murder for the August 16, 2006 fatal beating of Senior Police Officer II Orlando De Leon in Makati City. The Information alleged that the accused, armed with an LPG tank and acting in conspiracy, struck De Leon on the head while he was performing official duties, inflicting fatal traumatic injuries.
At trial the prosecution presented eyewitness testimony (Edwin Lonzame) and medico-legal evidence (Dr. Voltaire Nulud) that De Leon was beaten, hit repeatedly with a gas tank and stove, had his skull fractured, and died of intracranial hemorrhage from traumatic head injuries. Lonzame identified the assailants as Randolf, Romeo, Eric and Roland and recounted that Romeo returned after the others left and dropped a gas tank on De Leon’s face. The police recovered De Leon’s service firearm; all four accused were arrested the same morning. Eric later died and the case against him was dismissed.
The accused testified to a different account: they had been drinking earlier; Randolf said he went to the bakery where an altercation occurred, alleged that he was first struck by an unknown man, that De Leon threatened or tried to draw his gun, and that the scuffle ensued with De Leon falling and being hit. Romeo and Randolf admitted striking De Leon but portrayed actions as in defense of a relative or to prevent De Leon from using his firearm. Roland claimed he attempted to pacify the situation and denied culpability.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 66, in a Decision dated December 4, 2009, found Romeo and Randolf guilty of murder, sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, and ordered payment of burial expenses and damages; Roland was acquitted; charges against Eric were dismissed due to his death. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In its May 23, 2012 Decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04343, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the awards: it deleted burial expenses, increased civil indemnity to P75,000, and ordered moral damages of P50,000, exemplary damages of P30,000 and temperate damages of P25,000, with 6% interest per annum from finality. The CA held that the justifying circumstances (self-defense/defense of a relative) were not established because there was no unlawful aggression by De Leon and that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was proven because De Leon was helpless when repeatedly attacked.
Appellants brought t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming appellants’ convictions for murder by finding that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present?
- Were the justifying circumstances of self-defense or defense of a relative established in favor of appellants?
- Were the monetary awards and interest ordered by t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)