Case Summary (G.R. No. 91004-05)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Critical dates: incident on or about 16 March 1996; Information filed 18 March 1996; RTC decisions November 4 and November 15, 1999; CA decision February 14, 2002; Supreme Court decision January 30, 2007. Applicable legal framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution; Revised Penal Code (including Articles on mitigating/aggravating circumstances, Article 249 on homicide, Article 64 on indeterminate sentencing); The Indeterminate Sentence Law; Civil Code provisions on damages (Arts. 2217–2220, 2229–2235); pertinent doctrine on self-defense and burden of proof as applied in the decision.
Procedural History
An Information charging Murder was filed in the RTC, Quezon City. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. The RTC convicted petitioner of Homicide and initially imposed a determinate term; it later issued a corrected decision changing the penalty to an indeterminate sentence. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed conviction but modified the penalty. The petitioner then sought review in the Supreme Court, which denied the petition but further modified the penalty and restored full actual damages awarded by the RTC.
Prosecution’s Version of Facts
Eyewitness Arnel Tanael testified that on the evening of March 16, 1996 he observed an argument in an alley beside petitioner’s house involving the victim and petitioner with others present. He heard two gunshots, then saw Paul Lopez hit the victim with a lead pipe and observed petitioner strike the victim on the left eyebrow with the lead pipe, after which the victim fell. Arnel returned to the house briefly, then found the victim moaning; the victim was taken to East Avenue Medical Center and died two hours later. The NBI medico-legal officer performed a post-mortem and attributed death to traumatic head injury with extensive hemorrhages.
Defense’s Version of Facts
Petitioner and defense witnesses testified that petitioner was leaving to attend a wake with Tanod members when two gunshots were heard downhill and the victim, Romulo CariAo, walked toward them. Petitioner allegedly asked the victim what his problem was, whereupon the victim brandished a gun and threatened to shoot. Petitioner claimed to have struck the victim once with a piece of wood to disarm him, insisting there was no intent to kill and that the objective was disarmament. The defense further claimed the victim later ran away with the gun.
RTC Findings and First Dispositive Ruling
The RTC found defense testimony, including petitioner’s, not credible. It relied on the eyewitness account and the medico-legal findings showing extensive head injuries and skull fractures. The RTC concluded that the prosecution established the elements of the offense and that treachery, evident premeditation, and grave abuse of superior strength were not proven. The RTC recognized two mitigating circumstances in favor of petitioner (lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and sufficient provocation), and sentenced petitioner under the Revised Penal Code with an indeterminate term under Article 64. The RTC also awarded P41,500.00 actual damages and P50,000.00 indemnity.
RTC Correction and Re-Promulgation
The RTC, motu proprio, set aside its initial judgment because of a mistake in the judgment proper and required the parties to appear; it then promulgated a second decision correcting the penalty language and applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law in sentencing. The second decision was the judgment appealed to the CA. The Court of Appeals and later the Supreme Court considered the correction proper because it did not introduce new evidence or alter the essential findings.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA affirmed the RTC’s factual findings and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the eyewitness whose detailed account corresponded with the autopsy report. The CA rejected the claim of self-defense, reasoning that the alleged aiming of a gun did not constitute unlawful aggression sufficient for self-defense. The CA also concluded that the mitigating circumstances found by the RTC were not fully supported by evidence and therefore modified the penalty upward to an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, while reducing the civil award to P50,000.00 indemnity only.
Issues Raised on Review
Petitioner’s principal assignments of error challenged (A) the conviction despite purported findings of no intent and absence of provocation; (B) the denial of self-defense; (C) the CA’s reliance on a single eyewitness whose testimony allegedly contained inconsistencies; and (D) claimed grave abuse by the CA in increasing the penalty without adequate discussion.
Supreme Court’s Standard on Self-Defense and Burden of Proof
The Supreme Court reiterated controlling principles: once self-defense is pleaded, the burden shifts to the accused to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the three elements of self-defense—(1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation by the defender. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger at the time the defensive action is taken; mere threatening or intimidating acts do not alone constitute unlawful aggression.
Supreme Court’s Rejection of Self-Defense Claim
Applying the standard, the Court found petitioner failed to establish unlawful aggression. The Court found the defense account implausible in key respects: (1) the victim, despite alleged severe wounds, was said by the defense to have stood up and run away holding a gun and yet did not use it—this was improbable given the extent of injuries; (2) the Tanod members and petitioner had an opportunity to wrest the gun when the victim fell and did not do so, which undermines a credible claim of imminent danger; and (3) the eyewitness account and autopsy findings showed that the force used was sufficient to produce death, inconsistent with the asserted limited purpose to disarm. Consequently, self-defense (complete or incomplete) was not established.
Analysis of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
The Court agreed with the CA that the RTC erred in finding two mitigating circumstances. On lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, the Court relied on the autopsy and medico-legal testimony showing extensive hemorrhages and skull fractures—evidence that the force employed was reasonably sufficient to produce death and therefore inconsistent with lack of intent. On sufficient provocation, the Court held that mere existence of an intense argument is not per se sufficient; provocation must be sufficient an
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 91004-05)
Procedural History
- Criminal Information dated March 18, 1996 filed in RTC, Quezon City, Branch 103, as Criminal Case No. 96-65313, charging petitioner with Murder alleging conspiracy with three other persons, qualified by evident premeditation, treachery, and advantage of superior strength; accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
- Trial on the merits conducted; prosecution and defense presented evidence and witnesses.
- RTC rendered a Decision dated November 4, 1999 convicting petitioner of Homicide and imposing a determinate sentence with civil liabilities; due to a mistake in the judgment proper, the RTC motu proprio set aside that judgment and required parties to appear.
- RTC promulgated a corrected Decision dated November 15, 1999 convicting petitioner of Homicide and imposing an indeterminate sentence under Article 64, paragraph 5 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law; ordered civil indemnities.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
- CA Decision dated February 14, 2002 affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum; awarded P50,000 indemnity to heirs.
- CA Resolution dated September 9, 2002 denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- Petition for review filed with the Supreme Court; Supreme Court rendered Decision (G.R. No. 155094, January 30, 2007) denying the petition, affirming conviction with modification to penalty and restoration of actual damages awarded by RTC.
Charge and Allegations in the Information
- Information charged petitioner with Murder committed on or about March 16, 1996 in Quezon City, alleging:
- Conspiracy with three other persons whose names and whereabouts were unknown.
- Intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, and taking advantage of superior strength.
- That accused and co-conspirators attacked Romulo Cariao y Vallo, hitting him with a lead pipe in different parts of his body, inflicting serious and mortal wounds which caused death.
- The charge concluded with "CONTRARY TO LAW."
Prosecution Version of Events (as summarized by CA)
- On March 16, 1996, around 10:00 p.m., Arnel Tanael proceeded to Romulo CariAo’s house after passing petitioner’s house, where petitioner and companions were drinking on the terrace.
- Romulo went out to buy cigarettes; while Arnel was watching television, he heard two gunshots and rushed outside.
- From a distance of approximately eight (8) meters, peeping through potted plants on a neighbor’s fence, Arnel saw Romulo, petitioner, petitioner’s daughter Marilou Lopez, her husband Paul Lopez, and one Rogelio Gascon arguing in the alley in front of petitioner’s house; there was a lighted fluorescent light at the scene.
- Arnel heard Paul Lopez insult Romulo and saw Marilou hand a lead pipe to Paul; Paul hit Romulo on the right arm, then petitioner hit Romulo on his left eyebrow with the lead pipe; Romulo reeled and fell.
- Arnel briefly retreated inside in confusion, then returned and saw Romulo moaning; Paul Lopez was poking a gun at Romulo and pulled the trigger twice but the gun did not fire.
- Arnel carried Romulo into the house and arranged transport; Romulo was brought to East Avenue Medical Center and died about two hours later.
- NBI Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Roberto Garcia conducted post-mortem and declared cause of death as traumatic head injury; opined that even with immediate and adequate medical attention the victim would not have survived due to extensive hemorrhages.
Defense Version of Events (as summarized by CA)
- Petitioner testified he was fetched by Tanod members to attend a wake; as he was leaving, he saw Paul and Malou and his granddaughter in a car; they went to visit Malou’s in-laws.
- At the gate, while conversing with Tanod members, they heard two gunshots and noticed a person walking towards them—this person was Romulo CariAo.
- According to petitioner, when Romulo reached a store one fence away, petitioner asked him what his problem was; Romulo allegedly extended his arms and pointed a gun at petitioner and companions, saying not to come near or he would shoot and kill them.
- Fearing for their lives, petitioner stepped back, grabbed a piece of wood, and hit Romulo with one blow intending to disarm him; petitioner claimed uncertainty as to precisely which parts were struck but saw Romulo lose balance, fall, hit his head on the ground, then after five seconds stand up and run with the gun in hand.
- Petitioner asserted he had no intention to kill and only intended to disarm the victim; claimed they decided to deal with him the next day rather than pursue him immediately.
RTC Findings and Decisions (November 4 and November 15, 1999)
- RTC found defense testimonies, including petitioner’s, incredible and that the victim suffered extensive head injuries; defense failed to show imminent threat or danger to accused’s life.
- RTC concluded treachery, evident premeditation, and advantage of superior strength were not present; found two mitigating circumstances in favor of petitioner: lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and sufficient provocation.
- RTC’s first dispositive judgment (November 4, 1999) sentenced petitioner to Six (6) Months Arresto Mayor as minimum and Four Years and One (1) Day of Prision Correctional as maximum; awarded P41,500.00 actual damages and P50,000.00 indemnity.
- RTC issued Order motu proprio on November 12, 1999 setting aside the judgment due to a mistake in the judgment proper and required appearance of parties.
- RTC promulgated second Decision on November 15, 1999 correcting the penalty to an indeterminate jail term under Article 64, paragraph 5 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law: minimum Four (4) Years, Two (2) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Correccional and maximum Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor; reaffirmed civil awards of P41,500.00 actual damages and P50,000.00 indemnity.
Court of Appeals Decision (February 14, 2002)
- CA affirmed RTC’s findings of guilt and credibility of prosecution witnesses; considered inconsistencies in Arnel Tanael’s testimony as minor and indicative of unrehearsed testimony.
- CA found prosecution testimony highly credible and consistent with autopsy findings; stated the judge who penned the decision being different from the trial judge did not render the decision erroneous when evidence supports judgment.
- CA rejected defense claim of self-defense, holding alleged act of victim poking the gun did not constitute unlawful aggression sufficient for self-defense; mere aiming and threat to kill amounted to intimidation but not actual and unexpected attack or imminent danger.
- CA reversed RTC’s appreciation of two mitigating circumstances (lack