Today is Sunday, July 23, 2017

Custom Search

Republic of the Philippines

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 202847 October 23, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

RESOLUTION

REYES, J.:

For review1 is the Decision2 dated May 25, 2011 of the Court of Appeals CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00671 which
affirmed the Judgment3 dated May 9, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court RTC) of Burauen, Leyte, Branch 15
convicting and sentencing accused-appellant Antero Gamez y Baltazar accused-appellant) to reclusion perpetua for
the crime of parricide.

The Facts

Accused-appellant was accused of killing his own father, Apolinario Gamez (Apolinario) through an Information
articulating the following criminal charges, viz:

That on or about the 21st day of August, 2004, in the Municipality of Burauen, Province of Leyte, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with treachery, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and wound one APOLINARIO GAMEZ y
AMORILLO, his father, with the use of a long bladed weapon (sundang) and sickle (sarad) which the accused
provided himself for the purpose, thereby hitting and inflicting upon Apolinario Gamez y Amorillo multiple hacking
and incised wounds on the different parts of his body which were the direct and approximate cause of his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

When arraigned, he entered a "Not Guilty" plea. He thereafter desired to amend his plea to "Guilty" during the pre-
trial conference held on September 26, 2005 but the RTC denied the said plea bargaining. In view however of the
accused-appellants invocation of self-defense, an inverted trial scheme ensued.5

Through the testimonies of the accused-appellant himself, Dr. Irene Astilla Dacut, his attending physician, and
eyewitness Bienvenido Buhalog, the defense narrated the events that culminated into the encounter that claimed
Apolinarios life.6

The accused-appellant and 69-year old Apolinario had a less than ideal father and son relationship with the former
claiming that the latter did not treat him well when he was a child. Their relationship got more strained when
Apolinario meddled with the accused-appellants personal relationship with his wife. Apolinario apparently told the
accused-appellant that his wife was being unfaithful. The unsolicited information irked the accused-appellant.

On August 21, 2004, the accused-appellant had a drinking spree in his house at Barangay Gamay, Burauen, Leyte,
with his two brothers, Nicolas and Cornelio from 12 noon until 3:00 p.m. As he was about to go out of the kitchen
door, the accused-appellant saw Apolinario standing at the doorway with a long bolo. Apolinario appeared to be
drunk.

To prevent any commotion, Nicolas held Apolinario but he was able to free himself from his sons grip. The accused-
appellant then spoke to Apolinario: " I think that you are looking for me and I believe it is since last night ." An
argument ensued between them. In order not to prolong the spat, the accused-appellant and his brothers took their
father to his nipa hut about 500 meters away. But before the accused-appellant could leave, he got into another
argument with Apolinario.
The accused-appellant then set out to the place where he gathered tuba while his brothers went back to his house.
After gathering tuba and tethering his carabao, the accused-appellant proceeded home. He met Apolinario along a
pathway. With no one to pacify them, they decided to resume their quarrel.

The accused-appellant first remarked: "Father, what are the words that you uttered?" to which Apolinario responded,
"It is better if one of us will perish." Apolinario then instantaneously hacked the accused-appellant with a long bolo
hitting him twice on the head for which he sustained a 5-centimeter long and scalp-deep incised wound with fracture
of the underlying bone and another 5-cm long incised wound on the frontal right portion of his head.

The accused-appellant fell to his knees as Apolinario delivered another blow which the former was able to parry by
raising his left arm. The accused-appellant was wounded on the left 3rd interdigital space posterior to his palm.

The accused-appellant then held Apolinarios hands, grabbed the bolo and used the same to hack the latter several
times, the count of which escaped the accused-appellants consciousness as he was already dizzy. The accused-
appellant thereafter left the scene and went home. His brother brought him to the hospital upon seeing that his head
was teeming with blood. He was hospitalized for six (6) days before he was taken to the municipal hall by the police
officers.

The rebuttal evidence for the prosecution, on the other hand, principally consisted of the testimony of Maura Anadia
(Maura), Apolinarios daughter and the accused-appellants sister. According to Maura, at around 4:30 p.m. of
August 21, 2004, she was with her father at their house located at Barangay Gamay, Burauen, Leyte when his elder
brother, the accused-appellant, arrived. He was carrying a long bolo and a scythe was tucked on his waist.

He approached her and said: "Will you join the killing spree today including your child that you are carrying? "before
turning to Apolinario with this query: "What are the stories that you were talking?"

Frightened, Maura ran away and hid at a grassy portion near the house. She then saw her father flee but the
accused-appellant gave him a chase. Apolinario was able to run for about 20 m before the accused-appellant was
able to catch up.

The accused-appellant then hacked the unarmed Apolinario on the right side of his head using the bolo. Apolinario
fell down and the accused-appellant finished him off by slashing his neck with the scythe. Maura thereafter left to
report the incident to the police.

The autopsy conducted on Apolinarios cadaver by Dr. Leonita Azores, MD,7 showed that he sustained two (2) fatal
wounds one of which almost decapitated his head while the other hit the parietal aspect thereof exposing the skin
and connective tissue. Apolinario also obtained two (2) incised wounds on his neck and left forearm and two (2)
lacerations on his fingers. He perished at the crime scene.8

Ruling of the RTC

In its Judgment9 dated May 9, 2006, the RTC found that both the prosecution and the defense deliberately withheld
vital details of the incident. The prosecution did not reveal that the initial unlawful aggression was committed by
Apolinario who, based on medical records, hacked the accused-appellant in the parietal area of his head. The
defense, on the other hand, concealed that accused-appellant pursued the victim after the latter fled. These findings
completed the sequence of the incident and revealed that the accused-appellants claim of self-defense is
unmeritorious.

The RTC held that when accused-appellant hacked and killed Apolinario, the unlawful aggression which the latter
initially perpetrated has already ceased because he has already ran away for 20 m. Hence, accused-appellants act
was not self-defense but rather one of retaliation which, in turn, props up the conclusion that he intentionally killed
his father. The decretal portion of the RTC decision thus reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused ANTERO GAMEZ y Baltazar GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Parricide penalized under Art. 246 of the Revised Penal Code and
considering the presence of one (1) mitigating circumstance without any aggravating to offset it, hereby sentences
him to suffer imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA; to pay the Heirs of Apolinario Gamez Php50,000.00 as civil
indemnity for his death and to pay the costs of this suit.

The accused who underwent preventive imprisonment since August 21, 2004 shall be credited with the full time
during which he was deprived of his liberty if he agreed voluntarily and in writing to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he will be entitled to only four-fifths (4/5) thereof.10

Ruling of the CA

The CA adopted the RTCs findings and similarly concluded that the accused-appellant put up retaliation and not
self-defense because the aggression proffered by the victim has already ended when the accused-appellant
attacked him. From the time Apolinario ran away and was disarmed by the accused-appellant, the aggression
originally heaved by the former has ceased. Hence, when the accused-appellant chased and hacked Apolinario
several times, self-defense can no longer be invoked. The CA affirmed the conviction and sentence rendered by the
RTC as well as the award of civil indemnity but an additional award of moral damages was granted for Apolinarios
heirs. The CA Decision11 dated May 25, 2011 disposed thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the assailed May 9, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Burauen, Leyte, Branch 15, in CRIM. CASE NO. Bn-05-03-4125, is hereby AFFIRMED with modification. Aside from
the civil indemnity already awarded, the accused is also hereby directed to pay the heirs of Apolinario Gamez the
amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages in accordance with the recent jurisprudence.

No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.12

The accused-appellant manifested before the Court that in the present review, he is adopting the arguments
contained in his Brief filed before the CA whereby he argued that his guilt for the crime of parricide was not proved
beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in ruling that he failed to prove self-defense.

The Courts Ruling

The Court affirms the accused-appellants conviction.

The arguments proffered by the accused-appellant essentially attack the evaluation by the trial court of the
testimony of the prosecutions principal witness, Maura, and its ruling that the same satisfactorily repudiate his claim
of self-defense.

This Court has consistently adhered to the rule that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness
stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the
witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on the record. Hence, the
corollary principle that absent any showing that the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances that
would affect the final disposition of the case, appellate courts are bound to give due deference and respect to its
evaluation of the credibility of an eyewitness and his testimony as well as its probative value amidst the rest of the
other evidence on record.13

We see no compelling reason to depart from the foregoing tenets especially in view of the accused-appellants
failure to identify significant details, which if considered, will alter the outcome of the trial courts judgment and the
affirmation accorded it by the CA. At any rate, an examination of the records at hand shows that the factual basis of
accused-appellants plea of self-defense cannot relieve him from criminal liability.

Self-defense, when invoked, as a justifying circumstance implies the admission by the accused that he committed
the criminal act.14 Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. However, if the accused admits killing
the victim, but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such defense by clear,
satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on his part.15

In order to escape criminal liability, it becomes incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing
evidence the concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Revised Penal
Code, viz: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.16

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without it, there can
be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, that can validly be invoked.17 "There is an unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-
defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon."18 It is present only when the one attacked
faces real and immediate threat to ones life. It must be continuous; otherwise, it does not constitute aggression
warranting self-defense.19

Here, the accused-appellant, miserably failed to discharge his burden of proving that unlawful aggression justifying
self-defense was present when he killed Apolinario.

The aggression initially staged by Apolinario was not of the continuous kind as it was no longer present when the
accused-appellant injured Apolinario. As testified by the accused-appellant himself, he was able to grab the bolo
from Apolinario. From that point on, the aggression initially staged by Apolinario ceased to exist and the perceived
threat to the accused-appellants life was no longer attendant.
Hence, the accused-appellant was no longer acting in self-defense, when he, despite having already disarmed
Apolinario, ran after the latter for about 20 m and then stabbed him. The accused-appellants claim of self-defense is
further negated by the fatal incision on Apolinarios neck that almost decapitated his head, a physical evidence
which corroborates Mauras testimony that after stabbing Apolinario with the bolo, the accused-appellant pulled out
the scythe on his waist and used the same to slash Apolinarios neck. The use of a weapon different from that
seized from the victim and the nature of the injury inflicted show the accused-appellants determined resolve to kill
Apolinario.

When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original
aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor.
Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already
ceased when the accused attacked him; while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was
injured by the accused.20

The CA was thus correct in upholding the findings and conclusions of the RTC, thus:

Although, it is supported by the medical report, that the accused-appellant was indeed initially attacked by the victim,
the act of the accused-appellant of going after the victim, who was already running away from the accused-appellant
after the latter has gained possession of the weapon, is anathema to the self-defense theory invoked by the
accused appellant.

xxxx

In the instant case, the trial court gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness that the victim tried to
run away from the accused-appellant but the accused-appellant ran after him. When the accused-appellant was
able to overtake the victim, the latter was hacked on the right side of his head. To finish him off, the accused-
appellant slashed the victims neck with the use of a scythe until the victim (his own father) died. Thus, assuming
arguendo that the father was indeed the first aggressor, the aggression ceased the moment the accused-appellant
disarmed him and the victim tried to run away from the accused-appellant. When the accused-appellant then
continued to chase his 69 year-old father and hacked several times the already disarmed victim, self-defense can no
longer be invoked.21

In fine, there is no justifiable cause exempting the accused-appellant from criminal liability and the courts a quo were
correct in convicting him for parricide.

Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased
is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant,
or the legitimate spouse of the accused.22 Here, it is an undisputed fact that Apolinario was the accused-appellants
father.

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal, the crime of parricide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. It must
1wphi1

be noted that the declaration of the RTC in its Judgment dated May 9, 2006 on the presence of a mitigating
circumstance is not supported by any allegation or evidence on record. Nonetheless, in view of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 934623 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty, the courts a quo correctly sentenced the accused-appellant
to reclusion perpetua.24

It must be emphasized, however, that the accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of
R.A. No. 9346 which states that "persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua , or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua , by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."25

The award of 50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of Apolinario is proper and in line with current
jurisprudence.26 Civil indemnity is mandatory upon proof of the fact of death of the victim and the culpability of the
accused for such death.27 The award of 50,000.0028 as moral damages is likewise correct. Even in the absence of
any allegation and proof of the heirs emotional suffering, it has been recognized that the loss of a loved one to a
violent death brings emotional pain and anguish.29

The Court finds that an award of exemplary damages in the amount of 30,000.0030 is in order considering that the
qualifying circumstance of relationship is present in the crime of parricide.31

Lastly, in conformity with current policy, we impose on all the monetary awards for damages an interest at the legal
rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.32

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated May 25, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00671 finding the accused-appellant, Antero Gamez y Baltazar, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Parricide, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Antero Gamez y Baltazar is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Apolinario
Gamez, the amounts of 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, 50,000.00 as moral damages and 30,000.00 as exemplary
damages. The award of damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6) per annum from the finality of
this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

BIENVEDNIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Footnotes
1 Pursuant to People v. Mateo G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, 653-658.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando
and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; CA rollo pp. 73-81.

3 Issued by Executive Judge Yolan9a U. Dagandan; id. at 10-17.

4 Id. at 10.

5 Id. at 74.

6 As culled from accused-appellants Brief filed before the CA, id. at 27-30; and from the narration of facts in
the RTC Judgment dated May 9, 2006, id. at 12-13 and CA Decision dated May 25, 2011, id. at 74-75.
7 His testimony was dispensed with on account of the admission by the defense of the authenticity and due
execution of the medical certificate he issued for the victim, Apolinario Gamez; id. at 11.

8 As culled from the appellees Brief filed before the CA, id. at 54-65; and from the narration of facts in the
RTC Judgment dated May 9, 2006, id. at 12-13 and CA Decision dated May 25, 2011, id. at 76.

9 Id. at 10-17.

10 Id. at 16-17.

11 Id. at 73-81.

12 Id. at 80-81.

13 People of the Philippines v. Ronald Credo aka "Ontog", Randy Credo and Rolando Credo y Buenaventura,
G.R. No. 197360, July 3, 2013.
 14 People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665 , September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 804, 813.

15 Simon A. Flores v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.

16 People v. Concillado, G.R. No. 181204, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 363, 379.

17 People v. Paycana, Jr., 574 Phil. 780, 787 (2008).

18 People v. Comillo, Jr., G.R. No. 186538, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 756, 772.

19 Simon A. Flores v. People of the Philippines, supra note 15.

20 Id.

21 CA rollo, pp. 79-80.

22 People v. Paycana, Jr., supra note 17, at 789.

23 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.

24 See People v. Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 510, 521.

25 See People v. Dejillo, G.R. No. 185005, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 537, 556, citing People v. Tadah,
G.R. No. 186226, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 744, 747.
26 People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 03, 2011, 658 SCRA 367, 381.

27 People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 364, 374.

28 Supra note 26.

29 Supra note 24, at 522.

30 Supra note 26.

31 Supra note 24, at 523.

32 Supra note 26.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation