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 Summary (G.R. No. 102772)

Applicable Law

Decision reviewed and analyzed under the 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision is dated after 1990) and the Revised Penal Code. Relevant statutory and doctrinal provisions invoked by the Court include the elements and evidentiary standards for evident premeditation; the requisites for self-defense; the criteria for voluntary surrender and for physical defect as mitigating circumstances (Article 13, Revised Penal Code); and the scope of Article 69, Revised Penal Code, concerning reduction of penalty where mitigating circumstances approaching justification exist. The Court also applied settled jurisprudential rules on evaluation of witness credibility.

Procedural History and Indictment

An Information charging murder with evident premeditation and treachery was filed on January 11, 1991. The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment on March 8, 1991. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 164, Pasig) convicted the accused of murder and imposed reclusion perpetua, with a P50,000 civil indemnity, by decision dated September 6, 1991. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Prosecution Version of Facts

On the evening of January 10, 1991, at about 9:00 p.m., witnesses Renato Molina and Dante Deopante were conversing when they saw the accused approach while drawing an open fan knife (balisong) from his back pocket. Molina warned Dante to flee; both ran in different directions. The accused chased Dante, overtook and grappled with him on a nearby basketball court; when Dante lay on his back the accused allegedly stabbed him twice and then fled. Bystanders brought Dante to Rizal Medical Center. Police were informed and later visited the accused’s home; Patrolman Pio invited the accused to the station for investigation and recovered a 10-inch fan knife from him, which was sent to the crime laboratory. Autopsy by Dr. Aranas showed seven wounds, of which two were stab wounds; one stab lacerated the diaphragm, left lobe of the liver and stomach, causing instantaneous death. The balisong showed minute traces of human blood.

Defense Version of Facts

The accused admitted involvement in a physical altercation but claimed self-defense. He testified that the victim (allegedly intoxicated) initiated the assault by boxing him; the victim and his companion pursued the accused, who was overtaken and grabbed by the back of his shirt. During the struggle the accused allegedly wrested a knife from the victim and then lost track of whether he stabbed the victim. The defense presented medical certificates showing the accused sustained minor injuries (scratch and abrasions). The accused also testified that he was a former policeman discharged for absence without leave and that his left hand had been severed previously by his brother.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court credited the prosecution’s eyewitnesses (Manolo Angeles and Renato Molina) as disinterested, credible witnesses, and found that appellant acted with evident premeditation, chased and stabbed the victim, and fled the scene. The trial court rejected claims of voluntary surrender, physical defect as mitigating circumstance, and self-defense. It imposed reclusion perpetua and awarded civil indemnity of P50,000 to the victim’s heirs.

Issues on Appeal Presented by the Accused

The accused argued that the trial court erred by: (1) relying on the barangay blotter entry to support evident premeditation; (2) failing to afford mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and physical defect; (3) disregarding his claim of self-defense; (4) failing to note alleged flaws and inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses; and (5) failing to apply Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code to reduce the penalty.

Supreme Court Analysis — Evident Premeditation

The Court reiterated the three-element test for evident premeditation: (1) proof of time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) overt acts demonstrating persistence in that decision; and (3) sufficient lapse of time to reflect on the consequences. Mere lapse of time is not enough; premeditation must be shown by overt acts. The Court found sufficient proof: the victim’s prior complaint to the barangay captain (and its logbook entry) established timing for the accused’s decision; the interval between that complaint and the killing allowed reflection; and eyewitness Renato Molina’s testimony of seeing the accused drawing the open balisong, warning the victim to flee, the chase, the grapple, and the subsequent stabbing constituted the overt act evidencing adherence to the decision to kill. The Court adopted the trial court’s reasoning that the accused had multiple opportunities to desist but instead chased and stabbed the victim twice.

Supreme Court Analysis — Voluntary Surrender and Physical Defect

Voluntary surrender is appreciated only if it is spontaneous and shows intent to surrender unconditionally (acknowledgment of guilt or to save authorities the trouble of capture). The Court held that the accused did not voluntarily surrender: police went to his house and invited him to the station for investigation; he went to clear his name and did not acknowledge guilt. Regarding physical defect (severed left hand), mitigation requires that the defect materially limit the accused’s means to act or defend himself to the extent of diminishing voluntariness. The Court found no such limitation: despite the defect, the accused was able to attack, grapple and use a weapon; eyewitness testimony established that the balisong was open and in the accused’s hand during the chase, demonstrating that his physical defect did not reduce his freedom of action.

Supreme Court Analysis — Self-Defense

The Court stated the three requisites for self-defense: unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable means employed to repel it, and absence of sufficient provocation by the accused. Once the accused admits killing, the burden shifts to him to prove self-defense. The Court found the accused failed to prove unlawful aggression: his account that he wrested a knife

...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.

About Privacy Terms