Facts similar to People vs Binondo

FACTS:

The accused, Juan, brought the head of a person to the police station with the following version:

At about 8 in the evening, the accused and his wife went to the store to drink tuba. On their way to the store, the victim, Pedro, suddenly emerged from under a mango tree and approached the accused in an angry mood carrying a gun on his left hand and a bolo on the right and at the same time brandishing his bolo as if in the act of charging him, saying, “Why are you looking for me? What is your purpose?”

            The wife of the accused interceded and tried to pacify the victim. To avoid getting into trouble, the accused walk away and proceeded to his house ahead of his wife. After arriving home, the wife of the accused also arrived gasping for breath telling the accused that Pedro was on his way following her and he said he would kill Juan. Juan forthwith secured the front door, shut off all the lights and got his air gun and bolo to defend himself and his family.

            The victim finally arrived and he tried to force open the main door but failed. So he shouted at the accused, "Juan, come out I will break your head.”

            Juan position himself near the kitchen door, awaiting the attack of Pedro. Pedro forced open the kitchen door. When he was about to enter with his head protruding inside the kitchen, Juan aimed his rifle at the head of Pedro. From a distance of about one and one half (1-1/2) feet, he fired the rifle. When this happened, Pedro was still holding his firearm and his bolo and turned his head towards Juan and aimed his gun at him. But before Pedro could fire his gun, Juan attacked him with his bolo, his purpose to let the latter loosen his hold on his weapons. This was followed by five or six more strokes on the neck and body and so Pedro finally dropped his weapons and fell to the floor. Except on the skin of the nape, the head was almost severed from the body.

            Knowing that Pedro have an amulet which could revive him if his body is doused with water, Juan finally decided to cut off the victim’s head completely. Immediately thereafter, he carried the victim's head to the police station and surrendered it to the police authorities.

 

PROBLEM/ISSUE:

During the trial, Juan invoked self-defense. If you were the judge, what will be your decision?

  

ANSWER:

Juan’s plea of self-defense is completely incredible and he is criminally liable for the commission of murder on the basis of admitting that he killed Pedro.

Citing People vs Binondo (G.R. No. 97227 October 20, 1992), well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the doctrine that when the accused admits having killed the victim, but invokes self-defense, the burden of proving the elements of that defense by clear and convincing evidence lies with the accused. To do that, he must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. (People vs. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772 (1946): People vs. Libed, 14 SCRA 410 (1965); People vs. Canial, 46 SCRA 634 (1972); People vs. Kindo, 95 SCRA 553 (1980); People vs. Bacoyot, 174 SCRA 285 (1989); People vs. Maceda, 197 SCRA 499 (1991).

Whether or not Juan acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact and the court will be the one to appreciate facts and circumstances of weight and substance that would have render its conclusion. The accused must present clear and convincing evidence for the court to sustain the claim of self-defense.

Even assuming that Juan’s story were true, the oral threat made by Pedro to kill him unaccompanied by any other unequivocal act clearly showing his intent to carry out his threat does not constitute unlawful aggression. Mere shouting threats and poundings on the door of the accused's house do not constitute unlawful aggression as held in People vs. Masangkay (157 SCRA 320, 1988).

Furthermore, the fact that Juan shut off all the lights inside the house, there could not have possibly been any form of attack which may be said to be immediate and imminent from the victim upon his person. Putting out the lights inside the house threw the house in total darkness that the victim could not be in a position to locate him physically.

Not only was there an absence of unlawful aggression in the case at bar, but the claim of self-defense is likewise negated by the physical evidence.

Juan suffered no harm or injury physically. The number and nature of the wounds inflicted on the victim proved that if at all, the attack came from the accused. The victim had no chance to defend himself even if armed. The means employed becomes unreasonable and unnecessary when after the aggression head ceased and the victim no longer posed any threat of further attack, the accused continued inflicting injuries on the victim who fell to the ground helpless.

What absolutely negated the existence of a "reasonable necessity of the means employed in repelling the attack” was the fact that the accused decapitated the victim. The claim that the victim possessed an amulet which could revive him did not justify that last and final act of cutting off the victim's head. A dead man could not have possibly posed any further resistance or launch an attack, be it imminent or remote.

Due to the absence of self-defense, the Court is to determine whether or not there was any attending circumstance which will qualify the killing to murder.

These facts clearly constitute treachery, which raised the crime to murder.

The presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery was evidence from the testimony of the accused himself. According to him, his wife arrived ahead of the victim and he was apprised of the fact that the victim was on his way to their house and was threatening to kill him. He had enough time to prepare himself, his weapons and surroundings in a way that he would have the advantage of position and could deliver the first blow without risk to himself from his unwary victim. This he accomplished by putting off all the lights inside the house and by positioning himself near the kitchen door where he could not be seen at once. The accused employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the offense which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

Furthermore, when the killing was done with cruelty, by deliberately or inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse, it was likewise qualified to murder.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides that any person with the exception of those persons who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, who shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:  

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

 No greater outrage, insult or abuse can a person commit upon a corpse than to cut the head therefrom. The head represents the dignity of the person and any violence directed towards it cannot be interpreted in any other manner than an outrage to his corpse.

            As regards the mitigating circumstances claimed, it may be off-set by the aggravating circumstances of treachery under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.”

. The accused could not, however, claim incomplete self-defense as there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.

However, the killing was accompanied by the qualifying circumstance of outraging at the corpse of the victim, thus constituting the crime into murder. Treachery may be considered as a mere aggravating circumstance which may be set off by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

For reasons indicated, and in the light of the applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter, from the given facts of the case, the accused is guilty of the crime of murder. And since every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable (Art 100, Revised Penal Code), it is just but right that the accused be ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim. 

Witnesses' Credibility

PROBLEM:

At the roadside fronting the house of A, he was shot by B. Then C grabbed the gun from B and also fired at A twice hitting him. W, the wife of A, testified that she was standing by the window of their house waiting for her husband. A was alongside the road also waiting for his son to bring in their cows. Thus, W says she clearly saw how her husband was shot by the accused B and C. Similarly, S, a 9-year old son was about that time bringing in their cows from the other side of river and was going to the side where his father was waiting. S also testified that he saw B shot his father. 

The defense questioned the credibility of the witnesses. First, why is the wife waiting for her husband to bring in their cows at that time when she should have been busy with their other children as it was supper time. Second, the inconsistency of S’ testimony was also questioned, that when he went out of the house, his father was already dead.  

ANSWER: 

Citing the case of People vs Salazar (GRN 84891, Apri17, 1993), one's credibility cannot be attacked simply by saying that he should not have acted the way he did. The court had held that people react differently to a situation. The innate differences in man make each one unique by himself. Man's actions and reactions cannot be stereotyped. Thus, W cannot be faulted if she chose to wait for her husband and son by the window rather than do other chores. There is nothing unnatural in such action that would militate against her credibility. 

As to S’ apparently contradictory statements that he saw the shooting of his father, with his other declaration, that when he went out that evening, his father was already dead, may have erred for he was only 9 years old. But the error is not fatal. We cannot expect a boy of tender age to understand every question asked of him in the course of his direct examination, much less, during his cross-examination. Ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses who much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court. 

Moreover, in the same case, citing People vs Nalan (GRN 86640, January 25, 1991), it has been held that the most honest witnesses may make mistakes sometimes but such honest lapses do not necessarily impair their credibility. 

It cannot also be questioned that the prosecution witnesses being relatives of the victim are biased witnesses. The fact that prosecution witnesses are the wife and son of the victim does not make them incompetent witnesses nor detract from the credit due them (People vs Cuyo, GRN 76211, April 30, 1991, 196 SCRA 447). Mere relationship to a party cannot militate against the credibility of witnesses or be taken as destructive of the witnesses' credibility (People v. Penones, GRN 71553, August 16, 1991, 200 SCRA 624). 

Practicum II Research Paper No. 2 submitted to Judge Iluminado Meneses onJanuary 30, 2009.

Some information about Rape

FACTS: 

            Maria, a 16-year old girl, bought lemon from the store 60 meters away from the house. On her way home, Pedro and Juan invited her to go to the waiting shed with them. She refused and they followed her to her house.

            She went to her room and the two men were able to enter her room by climbing up the window. She attempted to go out but they pulled her back. Juan undressed her and inserted his penis into her vagina while standing. She tried to push them away but she was easily overcome by the two men. The sexual assault lasted about one minute and one went home. Pedro took his turn and had sexual intercourse with her in the same standing position. The sexual assault lasted about three minutes.

            The accused, Pedro and Juan aver that the testimony of Maria is not credible considering that at the time she was raped, she never resisted her rapist nor call for help. They were not armed and she was not threatened. There was no showing of force or intimidation.

ISSUE:

             Is the absence of external injury negates the use of force? Does this mean that Maria consented and thus no crime of rape happened?

ANSWER:

             In a long line of cases, the court held that absence of external injuries does not negate rape, to wit: 

Absence of external injuries in the body of the rape victim is not essential to the conviction of her attackers. (People vs Davatos, 229 SCRA 647)

 

Rule is settled that absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. (People v. Querido, 229 SCRA 745).

 

Absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime (People v. Casipit, 232 SCRA 638).

 

Absence of external signs of injury does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, especially when the victim was so intimidated by the offender into submission. (People v. Bautista, 236 SCRA 102).

 

The Court has time and again held that the absence of any external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. (People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658).

 

Absence of external injuries, in fact, does not negate the use of force or intimidation. It bears stressing that the absence of struggle on the part of the rape victim does not necessarily negate the commission of the offense. Failure to shout for help or fight back cannot be equated to voluntary submission to the criminal intent of the accused. xxx Fear, in lieu of force or violence, is subjective. Addressed to the mind of the victim of rape, its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime. In addition, as the Court has repeatedly observed, people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from those who are confronted with a strange, startling or frightening experience. (People v. Lustre, 386 Phil. 390).

 Furthermore, Republic Act No. 8353 provides how the crime of rape is committed:

             Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. Rape is Committed –

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following:

a.       Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b.       When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c.       By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d.       When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. 

...xxx... 

Article 266-D. Presumptions. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A.

            Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the rape in any degree from the victim is admissible as evidence of lack of consent. Tenacious resistance, however, is not required. Neither is a determined and persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary. The lawmakers took note of the fact that rape victims cannot mount a physical struggle in cases where they were gripped by overpowering fear or subjugated by moral authority. Article 266-D tempered the case law requirement of physical struggle by the victim with the victim’s fear of the rapist or incapacity to give valid consent. Thus, the law now provides that resistance may be proved by any physical overt act in any degree from the offended party (People vs. Dulay, GRN 144344-68, July 23, 2002).

Practicum II Research Paper No. 3 submitted to Judge Iluminado Meneses on February 6, 2009.