Title
People vs. Daroya
Case
G.R. No. 229502
Decision Date
Nov 8, 2017
Rafael Daroya convicted of Homicide, not Murder, for killing Rolando Songcuan; self-defense claim rejected, penalties and damages modified.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 229502)

Facts of the Case

Rafael Daroya was charged with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on October 19, 2002, Daroya attacked Rolando Songcuan, causing his death from head injuries due to continuous mauling. Upon arraignment, Daroya pleaded not guilty. The trial included witness testimonies, showing that Daroya assaulted Rolando with a metal object, resulting in serious injuries that led to the latter's death.

Trial and Lower Court Rulings

During the trial, the prosecution presented testimonies from several witnesses, including Dr. Bautista and a pedicab driver, Ceralde, who identified Daroya as the attacker. Daroya admitted to punching Rolando but claimed self-defense, alleging that Rolando initiated the fight. On February 24, 2014, the Regional Trial Court found Daroya guilty of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, along with several monetary damages to Rolando's heirs.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Daroya appealed the RTC's decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof for Murder and that there was provocation that justified his response. On February 15, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's ruling but modified the monetary awards.

Issues for Resolution

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's Decision that found Daroya guilty of Murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court found that the appeal was partly meritorious. For a conviction of Murder, the essential elements under Article 248 of the RPC must be met, including the presence of qualifying circumstances such as treachery. The Court acknowledged that while Daroya admitted to inflicting fatal injuries, he bore the burden to prove self-defense, which requires an unlawful aggression on his part that was not established in this case.

Self-Defense Plea

Daroya's claim of self-defense was analyzed, highlighting that he failed to demonstrate the presence of unlawful aggression by Rolando. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that Daroya was the aggressor. The Court emphasized that claims of self-defense must satisfy specific conditions, which were not met.

Findings on Treachery

The Court concluded that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The lower courts erroneously associated the suddenness of the attack with treachery without demonstrating that Daroya intentionally employed a means of attack that prevented Rolando from defending himself. This finding led the Court to reject the treachery qualification.

Modification of the Charge

Due to the lack of established treachery, the Supreme Court downgraded Daro

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.