Tarapen Vs People

Gelomina, Audrey Rose
Tarapen vs. People

G.R. No. 173824, August 28, 2008
FACTS:
Petitioner was charged before the RTC of Baguio City with Frustrated Homicide for attacking and
assaulting James Lacbao Pangoden. The day after, the victim died from the injuries he sustained. As a
consequence, an amended information was filed charging petitioner with Homicide. The facts are as
follows.
At around 7:00 to 7:30 in the morning, a dump truck driven by Jimmy Pugoy accompanied by petitioner
and Edmond Ferrer arrived at Zandueta St., Baguio City, to collect garbage. Upon reaching the Hilltop
Market, the truck turned around. During this time, vendors, including the victims were peddling their
wares along said street.Petitioner alighted from the truck and signaled to the driver to move slowly.
Despite guiding the truck, said vehicle ran over the eggplants being sold by Virginia Costales. Petitioner
picked up the vegetables and threw them towards the place where James was. This angered James
because the flowers he was selling were soiled. An exchange of words ensued between petitioner and
James. Petitioner went to the back of the dump truck and got a shovel. He then moved in front of the
truck where James was. While James was facing downwards, petitioner, coming from behind and
holding the shovel with two hands, struck James on the head with the same, causing him to fall to the
ground in a squatting position. As soon as James raised his head, petitioner hit the formers head again
with the shovel. Petitioner then ran away. James was brought to the Baguio General Hospital & Medical
Center (BGHMC). A doctor in BGHMC refused to operate James, saying that it was already hopeless.
His wife then transferred him to Saint Louis University (SLU) Hospital where he was operate, however
she was told that her husband had no more chance to live. She brought her husband to his hometown in
Namatugan, Sudipen, La Union, where he expired.
The RTC convicted the petitioner with Homicide which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner admits killing James but invokes self-defense. He claims that the victim was the unlawful
aggressor and that he (petitioner) did not provoke the victim.
Petitioner testified that at the time the incident subject of this case happened, he was riding the garbage
truck driven by Jimmy Pugoy. Since the driver was continuously blowing the horn of the vehicle, he
went down the truck and saw a sack of eggplants under the vehicle. He helped the old woman remove
the sack under the truck and carry it to the side of the road. After that, he said someone (James) punched
him at the right side of the head, which caused him to fall and sit on the road. As he was getting up with
his hands raised, James said, Nalastog kayo nga taga-gobierno, and then punched him for the second
time. He was a little dizzy and was again getting up when he was kicked on the left side of his body.
Feeling very dizzy, he tried to pick up something to throw at James. While sitting, he got hold of a
shovel which he swung, hitting James. Peter said he got up to run away, but James followed him. It was
then that Peter hit him again with the shovel. He went to their office and he was accompanied by his
supervisor in surrendering to the police
ISSUE:
Can petitioner Tarapen invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense?
HELD:
NO. It is textbook doctrine that when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the
accused to show that the killing was justified, and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. He
must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecutions evidence,
for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility
for the killing. Hence, he must prove the essential requisites of self-defense.
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense, whether
complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or
imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. There must be actual
physical force or a threat to inflict physical injury. In case of a threat, it must be offensive and positively
strong so as to display a real, not imagined, intent to cause injury.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly prove self-defense,
whether complete or incomplete.
First, accused-appellants claim that the victim James Pangoden, suddenly and without provocation,
boxed him on his right ear is simply unbelievable. By his own account, he (accused-appellant) was at
that moment helping a road vendor carry her sack of eggplants away from the path of the truck. If this
is true, then his testimony that James Pangoden attacked and boxed him for no reason at all loses
credibility.
Second, it is likewise inconceivable how accused-appellant could have hit the victim James Pangoden
twice in the head while he (accused-appellant) was allegedly in a sitting position and holding the shovel
by the middle part of its shaft.
Third, it simply goes against the grain of human experience for the victim James Pangoden to persist in
his attack against accused-appellant after getting hit in the head with a steel shovel, considering that he
is unarmed and had nothing to match accused-appellants weapon on hand. That James Pangoden still
had the resolution and power for a second assault on accused-appellant, after getting hit with a steel
shovel in the head, flouts ordinary human capacity and nature. In contrast, accused-appellant would
claim that he fell down and felt dizzy after getting boxed on the right side of his head by James
Pangoden with his bare fist.
Fourth, accused-appellant himself admitted walking away from the crime scene immediately after the
incident. As we see it, this actuation on his part is contrary to his assertion of self-defense. Flight
strongly indicates a guilty mind and betrays the existence of a guilty conscience, for a righteous
individual will not cower in fear and unabashedly admit the killing at the earliest possible opportunity
if he were morally justified in doing so.
Finally, the nature and number of the fatal injuries inflicted upon James negate accused-appellants
claim of self-defense. Said victim suffered cerebral contusion, epidural hematoma, scalp laceration and
skull fracture, which directly caused his death. If accused-appellant hit the victim just to defend himself,
it certainly defies reason why he had to aim for the head and do it twice. Indeed, the nature, number and
location of the wounds sustained by the victim belie the assertion of self-defense since the gravity of
said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend.
But even assuming arguendo that accused-appellant was able to establish the element of unlawful
aggression, still, this Court will rule out self-defense. It is undisputed that James Pangoden was unarmed
while accused-appellant was armed with a steel shovel. There was no reasonable necessity for accusedappellant to use a steel shovel to repel the attack of an unarmed man. Moreover, the eyewitnesses
account of how accused-appellant uncaringly threw the soiled eggplants towards the direction of James
goods would negate the absence of sufficient provocation on the part of accused-appellant.
Thus, the second and third requisites for self-defense to be successfully invoked, namely, reasonable
necessity of the means employed to repel the attack and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
accused, are not present in this case.

Tarapen Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tarapen Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tarapen Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gelomina, Audrey Rose

Tarapen vs. People

You might also like