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 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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment