Title
People vs. Del Castillo y Vargas
Case
G.R. No. 169084
Decision Date
Jan 18, 2012
Family members accused of murdering three victims with bolos and knives; self-defense claims rejected due to lack of unlawful aggression; conspiracy and abuse of superior strength proven; damages modified.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 169084)

Key Dates and Procedural History

Incident: March 21, 2000. Informations filed: March 28, 2000. Arraignment: April 7, 2000 (not guilty pleas). RTC conviction: October 23, 2001. Court of Appeals (CA) decision: April 28, 2005 (affirmed with modifications). Supreme Court decision: January 18, 2012. Cases consolidated for trial (Criminal Cases Nos. 10839–10841).

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable per instruction for post-1990 decision). Substantive and procedural provisions applied include: Article 248, Revised Penal Code (murder, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659); Article 11(1) and 11(2), Revised Penal Code (self-defense and defense of strangers); Article 8 (conspiracy), Article 63 (indivisible penalties) of the Revised Penal Code; Civil Code provisions on damages (Articles 2224 and 2230). The Court recognized the statutory repeal of the death penalty (Republic Act No. 9346) in sentencing analysis.

Facts as Found by the Prosecution (Eyewitness Testimony)

Eyewitness Froilan R. Perfinian testified that on the night of March 21, 2000, at about 9:00 p.m. he saw the six accused attack and assault the three victims in Sitio Bulihan. He identified each accused from about six meters away under a very bright moon, and stated familiarity with them. Perfinian described how the accused surrounded and attacked the victims, identifying specific acts by individual accused (e.g., Arnold stabbing Graciano, Rico hacking Graciano, Felix and Hermogenes pursuing and hacking Victor, Melanio and Joven pursuing Sabino). Perfinian fled the scene afterward, later provided information to victims’ families and to the police once the accused were arrested.

Physical and Forensic Evidence

Police recovered blood-stained clothing and a curved-end knife from Melanio’s house and a bolo from Melanio during arrest; Hermogenes’ bolo was surrendered by his wife. Post-mortem examinations by Dr. Luz M. Tiuseco established multiple stab and hack wounds consistent with perpetration by bolos/knives (Sabino: 11 hack and 12 stab wounds; Graciano: four stab and one hack wound; Victor: three hack wounds). These forensic findings corroborated Perfinian’s account that victims were repeatedly stabbed and hacked.

Defense Version and Admissions

The accused admitted presence in Bulihan that night but denied criminal liability. Arnold and Joven admitted inflicting injuries and invoked self-defense and defense of strangers; they claimed three men obstructed them and one tried to drag Winifreda (Hermogenes’ wife), with alleged attempts by victims to draw weapons. Other accused (Melanio, Hermogenes, Rico, Felix) asserted denial or alibi, claiming they left the area for Antipolo after being told dead bodies were found. Winifreda testified supporting Arnold and Joven’s narrative about alleged initial aggression against her.

RTC Judgment

The Regional Trial Court convicted all accused of murder under Article 248, finding conspiracy, treachery and abuse of superior strength as qualifying circumstances and appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance only in favor of Hermogenes. Sentences: reclusion perpetua for Arnold, Felix, Rico, Joven and Melanio; Hermogenes received a lesser indeterminate sentence (minimum 14 years, 8 months, 1 day to 20 years reclusion temporal) due to the court’s appreciation of voluntary surrender. The RTC also ordered joint and several civil indemnities and moral damages to the victims’ heirs.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the convictions but modified damages and Hermogenes’ penalty. It sentenced Hermogenes to reclusion perpetua (instead of the RTC’s indeterminate term) and adjusted civil indemnity, moral and actual damages: civil indemnity and moral damages set at P50,000 each to heirs of each victim; actual damages and nominal damages adjusted for each victim’s heirs in accord with receipts and proofs presented.

Issues on Final Appeal

The accused raised, inter alia: (1) that Arnold and Joven’s admission of responsibility should exculpate the others; (2) that Arnold and Joven acted in self-defense and in defense of strangers; (3) that conspiracy was not proven; and (4) that awards of damages lacked evidentiary support.

Supreme Court’s Deference to Trial Court Findings

The Supreme Court gave full credence to the RTC and CA findings, particularly to Perfinian’s eyewitness identification, noting the trial court’s superior position to assess witness demeanor and credibility. The Court found that neither the appellants presented overlooked or dispositive circumstances nor did they rebut Perfinian’s positive identification. The accused’s denials were characterized as self-serving; their conduct after the incident (flight, concealment of weapons, non-reporting) supported the courts’ adverse credibility assessments.

Legal Standard and Burden on Self-Defense and Defense of Strangers

The Court reiterated governing law on justifying circumstances: to establish self-defense, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation by the defender. Defense of strangers requires a similar tripartite showing with the additional requirement that the defender not be motivated by revenge or evil intent. Where the accused admits being the author of the killing (as Arnold and Joven did), the burden shifts to the accused to prove the justifying circumstance with sufficient and satisfactory proof, though the State retains its overall burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Rejection of Self-Defense and Defense of Strangers

The Supreme Court found Arnold and Joven failed to prove unlawful aggression by the victims. The Court emphasized the absence of recovered weapons from the victims, the lack of independent testimony by Arnold or Joven that they saw weapons or were in imminent peril, and the disproportionate nature and repetition of the wounds sustained by victims. The accuseds’ post-incident conduct—flight, concealment of weapons, failure to report or surrender—further undermined their claim of defense. Winifreda’s testimony regarding a balisong was uncorroborated and contradicted by physical evidence.

Conspiracy and Abuse of Superior Strength

The Court affirmed that conspiracy was established either by express or implied agreement, inferred from the manner of execution and the acts before, during and after the crime. The coordinated surround, pursuit of fleeing victims, armed status of the six accused versus three unarmed victims, and collective flight evidenced common design; under Article 8 and jurisprudence, all co-conspirators are equally liable. Abuse of superior strength was found as an aggravating circumstance because the accused outnumbered and were armed, taking advantage of their superiority to ensure the killings—qualifying the homicides as murder under Article 248.

Voluntary Surrender Consi

...continue reading

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.