Title
People vs. Deopante y Carillo
Case
G.R. No. 102772
Decision Date
Oct 30, 1996
Rogelio Deopante convicted of murder for stabbing Dante Deopante; claims of self-defense, mitigating circumstances rejected; evident premeditation proven.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 122498)

Facts:

  • Incident and Charges
    • On January 10, 1991, in Pasig, Metro Manila, the accused, Rogelio Deopante y Carillo, was charged with the crime of murder for fatally stabbing his nephew, Dante Deopante.
    • The Information charged that the accused, armed with a fan knife (balisong), acted with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, resulting in the victim sustaining mortal wounds.
    • The case stemmed from an Information filed on January 11, 1991, which detailed the commission of the murder contrary to law.
  • Prosecution’s Version of Events
    • At approximately 9:00 p.m. on the evening of January 10, 1991, Dante Deopante was conversing with his friend Renato Molina when they noticed the accused approaching while drawing an open fan knife from his right back pants pocket.
    • Sensing imminent danger, Renato Molina alerted Dante to flee. Despite fleeing, Dante was overtaken at a nearby basketball court where a physical altercation ensued.
    • During the struggle, once both parties fell to the ground, the accused managed to gain dominance and proceeded to stab Dante twice with the fan knife.
    • Immediately following the fatal assault, the accused fled the scene and bystanders promptly assisted by transporting the victim to Rizal Medical Center.
    • The police, responding to a call from the hospital, conducted an investigation during which a recovered 10-inch balisong and multiple eyewitness testimonies (including those of Renato Molina, Manolo Angeles, and a barangay captain’s record) further supported the prosecution’s narrative.
    • The autopsy report confirmed a total of seven wounds on the victim, with two being fatal stab wounds; forensic analysis linked the fan knife to the crime through traces of human blood.
  • Defense’s Version of Events
    • The accused and his defense witnesses (including his longtime friend Benito Carrasco and his son Vladimir Deopante) contended that the killing was committed in self-defense.
    • According to the defense, at around 9:00 p.m. the accused, allegedly returning home, was involved in a scuffle with a supposedly intoxicated victim who initiated the physical confrontation by boxing him.
    • The defense claimed that during the ensuing struggle, the victim pulled out a knife; the accused then wrested the weapon away and, in the chaos of rolling on the ground, may have inflicted the fatal stabs unintentionally.
    • Additional claims by the accused included allegations of having previously incarcerated the victim for being a drug addict during his service as a policeman, and the assertion that he suffered from a physical defect—a severed left hand—which purportedly affected his ability to act.
  • Evidentiary Records
    • Testimonies from multiple eyewitnesses (Renato Molina, Manolo Angeles) placed the accused as the aggressor who chased, grappled with, and ultimately fatally stabbed the victim.
    • The barangay captain, Alfonso Reyes, had on record in the barangay log a report made by the victim alleging threats by the accused, which supported the element of evident premeditation.
    • The recovery of the fan knife on the accused and the autopsy findings helped establish the cause and nature of the wounds consistent with a deliberate act rather than a struggle in self-defense.
    • The accused’s background as a former member of the Pasig Police Department and his physical injury (severed left hand) were also part of the evidentiary record, although they were not found to mitigate his criminal liability.

Issues:

  • Evident Premeditation
    • Whether the trial court erred in basing its finding of evident premeditation on the victim’s report to the barangay captain and the subsequent entry in the barangay log.
    • Whether the elements—decision time, overt act of drawing the balisong, and the lapse between the decision and execution—were correctly identified and applied.
  • Voluntary Surrender and Physical Defect
    • Whether the accused’s conduct, when fetched by the police from his residence without resistance, constituted a voluntary surrender that should mitigate his liability.
    • Whether the accused’s physical defect (a severed left hand) should have been considered as a mitigating circumstance reducing his degree of culpability.
  • Self-Defense Claim
    • Whether the accused successfully established the facts amounting to self-defense, including the presence of unlawful aggression by the victim and the reasonableness of his actions in defending himself.
    • Whether his version of events, particularly that the victim initially attacked him during their struggle, has sufficient corroboration against the eyewitness accounts.
  • Assessment of Witness Credibility
    • Whether the trial court properly evaluated the testimonies and credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses—including Renato Molina, Manolo Angeles, and even the account provided by the accused’s son, Vladimir Deopante.
    • Whether any inconsistencies or biases in witness testimonies could have affected the outcome of the trial.
  • Applicability of Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code
    • Whether the trial court erred by not applying Article 69 to reduce the penalty on the ground of incomplete self-defense.
    • Whether the circumstances of the case meet the requirements for such a privileged mitigating circumstance.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.