(PRIVILEGED) BACKGROUND That due to the untimely death of

Winnie Alon y Billanes[,] his heirs are

NOEL GUILLERMO y For the death of one Winnie Alon entitled to death indemnity in the
BASILIANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE (Winnie), the prosecution charged amount of P50,000.00 and other
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Arnaldo Socias,5 Joemar Palma, and damages pursuant to the provisions of
the petitioner with the crime of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
DECISION homicide under an Information that
states: ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.6
BRION, J.:
xxx The petitioner and his co-accused
For our review is the petition1 filed by were arraigned and pleaded not guilty
the petitioner Noel Guillermo y That at or about 5:40 o'clock in the to the offense charged with the
Basiliano (Petitioner) against the afternoon, on or about July 21, 1996, assistance of their counsel de parte.
decision2 dated November 15, 2001 at Brgy. Poblacion Takas, Municipality The prosecution presented Vicente
and the resolution3 dated April 5, of Cuartero, Province of Capiz, Alon (Vicente) and Eddie Roque
2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Philippines, and within the jurisdiction (Eddie) as witnesses in the trial that
in CA-G.R. CR No. 24181. The of this Honorable Court, the above- followed; Dr. Ricardo Betita, Jr. (Dr.
challenged decision4 affirmed the named accused, conspiring, Betita), Baby Lou Felipe (Baby Lou),
decision of the Regional Trial Court confederating[,] and mutually helping and the three accused - the petitioner,
(RTC), Branch 18, Roxas City one another, armed with knives and Arnaldo Socias, and Joemar Palma -
convicting and penalizing the with intent to kill, did then and there took the witness stand for the
petitioner for the crime of homicide willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defense.
with an indeterminate sentence of six assault, attack and stab one WINNIE
(6) years of prision correccional, as ALON y BILLANES, hitting the latter The material points in the testimony
minimum, to ten (10) years of prision and inflicting multiple stab wounds on of Vicente were summarized by the
mayor, as maximum. The assailed the different parts of his body, which trial court in its decision7 as follows:
resolution, on the other hand, denied injuries caused his death shortly
the petitioner's motion for thereafter. Vicente Alon averred that at 5:40 in
reconsideration. the afternoon of July 21, 1996, Winnie
Alon, Wilfredo Cabison, Eddie Roque, Significantly, Vicente admitted on them could fully consume a bottle
and him [sic] were at the public cross-examination that he and Winnie served upon each of them, Winnie
market of Cuartero, at [sic] the were already drunk even before they Alon and Arnel Socias argued about
restaurant of Melecio Heyres to went to the restaurant where the the cutting of wood by means of a
eat.8 Noel Guillermo, Arnel Socias, stabbing took place.13 chain saw [sic]. The argument was so
and Joemar Palma were at the heated that each of the protagonists
restaurant drinking beer. Noel Eddie corroborated the testimony of stood up and Arnel Socias took 2
Guillermo and Arnel Socias are known Vicente on material points, particularly bottles which were thrown to Vicente
to him since childhood since they on the state of their intoxication even Alon who was hit on the forehead.17
come from the same before going to the scene of the
barangay.9 Joemar Palma is known to stabbing. His testimony on what Noel Guillermo hugged or embraced
him only recently in that incident.10 transpired at the restaurant was Winnie Alon and stabbed him three
summarized in the RTC decision14 as times (3) on [sic] the neck with a
While sitting at the table inside the follows: Batangueño knife. Arnel Socias went
restaurant, an altercation between around, then behind, and stabbed
Arnel Socias and Winnie Alon Eddie Roque alleged that at around Winnie Alon once, on the left side of
regarding the cutting of wood by a 5:40 o'clock in the afternoon of July his body, just below his left armpit,
chain saw [sic] transpired. Noel 21, 1996, he, together with Winnie with a pointed object, but he could not
Guillermo suddenly took hold of Alon, Vicente Alon and Wilfredo determine what weapon was used.
Winnie Alon and stabbed the latter at Cabison, were [sic] inside the Joemar Palma also helped in stabbing
the neck three (3) times.11 Joemar restaurant of Mrs. Heyres at Cuartero Winnie Alon once, hitting him at the
Palma went to the kitchen and got a Public Market to leave their tools of right side of his body.18
knife. Arnel Socias hit him with a the chain saw [sic] and to eat and
bottle of beer by [sic] the head. He drink.15 Noel Guillermo, Arnel Socias, Winnie Alon resisted trying to struggle
fell down and lost and Joemer Palma were ahead of [sic], but could not move because he
consciousness.12 [Footnotes referring them to [sic] the restaurant and were was ganged up by the
to the pertinent parts of the record drinking beer. They invited them and three.19 [Footnotes referring to the
supplied] they joined them.16 Before each of pertinent parts of the record supplied]
Dr. Betita, rural health physician of The most probable cause of death was answered. Winnie Alon then had an
Cuartero, Capiz, declared on the massive [H]emorrhage secondary to altercation with Arnel Socias regarding
witness stand that he conducted on multiple stab wounds.21 "labtik" (string used in marking wood
July 22, 1996 a postmortem to be cut).24
examination on the body of According to Dr. Betita, the cause of
Winnie20 and made the following death was massive hemorrhage due Winnie Alon challenged Arnel Socias to
findings: to multiple stab wounds.22 He added a contest on clean or straight cutting
that the three (3) stab wounds were of wood. Arnel declined the challenge
POSTMORTEM EXAMINATION probably caused by a sharp-bladed claiming that he is only an assistant to
instrument like a knife.23 his brother-in-law. Winnie Alon got
The postmortem examination is done angry and told him that he has long
on the remains of Winnie Alon, 31 The petitioner gave a different version been in [the] chain saw [sic] business
years old, single, from Malagab-i, of the events, summarized in the RTC but "you re stupid" ("gago ka!"). Arnel
Cuartero, Capiz, was stab [sic] to decision as follows: responded: "If the wood is crooked
death at about 5:40 P.M. at Pob. and you would deviate from line, you
Takas, Public Market, Cuartero, Capiz Noel Guillermo testified that at 5:30 in re stupid."25
sustaining the following injuries: the afternoon of July 21, 1996, he was
in Cuartero at the restaurant of Winnie Alon suddenly stood up and
1. Stab wound 1.5 x 3 cm with 6-8 cm Melecio Heyres, husband of Gertrudes said to Arnel: "Don't ever call me
depth [L]eft anterior chest at level of Heyres, together with Arnel Socias stupid," pointing his finger to Arnel.
5th rib mid clavicular area. and Joemar Palma drinking beer, He told them to settle the matter
consuming only about half a bottle, peacefully as they are friend [sic], but
2. Stab wound 2 x 3 cm with 5 cm when Winnie Alon, Eddie Roque, Winnie Alon was so furious and
depth anterior neck just above the Vicente Alon, and Wilfredo Cabison grabbed Arnel Socias by the collar.
sternum. arrived and ordered beer from Arnel tried to release the hold of
Babylou Felipe. Winnie Alon came to Winnie from his collar. While he was
3. Stab wound 2 x 3 cm with 3-5 cm him and requested to join them in pacifying the two telling them to settle
depth at epigastric area. their table which he affirmatively the matter peacefully, Winnie Alon
turned to him and said: "you also," regarding "labtik."28 In the course of join them at their table. Arnaldo and
then struck him with a beer bottle. He the exchange, she saw Winnie strike his companions agreed. Winnie's
was hit at the right top of his head the petitioner on the head with a group then transferred to the table of
thrice. He stood up and boxed Winnie bottle. Winnie and the petitioner then Arnaldo's group.33
who again picked up a bottle break grappled with each other. At that
[sic] it against the wall, and struck point, she hid behind the refrigerator The discussion took a bad turn when
him with the broken bottle. He and did not see what happened next. the matter of cutting by chainsaw was
stepped back, pulled his knife, and Afterwards, she saw the bloodied body raised. Winnie challenged Arnaldo to a
stabbed him three (3) times but of Winnie lying outside the contest to determine who could do the
cannot remember what part of his restaurant.29 She likewise saw the cleanest cut. He declined and claimed
body was hit by his successive petitioner outside the restaurant; his he does not know how to operate a
stabs.26 x x x [Footnotes referring to shirt was splattered with blood.30 chainsaw. To this, Winnie retorted,
the pertinent parts of the record "You are already old in that business,
supplied] Dr. Betita, this time testifying as but your finished product is still
defense witness, stated, among crooked. You are all dumb." He
Baby Lou, a waitress at the restaurant others, that the contusion hematoma countered, "If the wood itself is
of Melecio Heyres, narrated that in the suffered by the petitioner could have crooked, you cannot have a straight
afternoon of July 21, 1996, the been caused by a hard object like a lumber. You are dumb if you insist
petitioner, together with Arnaldo and beer bottle, while the linear abrasion you can." At that point, Winnie stood
Joemar, arrived at the restaurant and could have been caused by a up and grabbed him by the collar. The
ordered beer.27 A few minutes later, fingernail.31 petitioner intervened and told them to
Vicente, Eddie, Winnie, and Wilfredo settle their differences peacefully.
Cabison arrived and also ordered Arnaldo Socias testified that on July Winnie then grabbed a bottle and
beer. She then saw the group of 21 1996, he, together with the struck the petitioner on the head
Winnie transfer to the table occupied petitioner and Joemar, was drinking three times.34 Arnaldo added that he
by the petitioner and his companions. beer at the restaurant of Melecio did not see who stabbed Winnie,
Thereafter, the group had a heated Heyres32 when Winnie stood up and because while the petitioner and
argument among themselves asked if they (Winnie's group) could
Winnie were grappling, he was busy The RTC, in its decision of January 8, Costs against the accused.
fighting with Vicente.35 2000, convicted the petitioner of the
crime of homicide, but acquitted For insufficiency of evidence, the
Joemar Palma testified that in the Arnaldo and Joemar. The dispositive accused Arnaldo Socias and Joemar
afternoon of July 21, 1996, the portion of the decision reads: Palma are acquitted of the crime
petitioner, Arnaldo, and he were charged. The bail bond for their
drinking beer at the restaurant of Mr. WHEREFORE, the evidence on record provisional liberty is CANCELLED
Heyres when four persons, who having established the guilt of Noel AND DISCHARGED.
appeared to be drunk (later identified Guillermo as principal in the crime of
as Vicente, Eddie, Winnie, and homicide for stabbing three (3) times SO ORDERED.39 [Emphasis in the
Wilfredo Cabison), entered the Winnie Alon which caused the latter's original]
restaurant and ordered beer.36 After death, attended by a special or
the latter group joined them at their privileged mitigating circumstance of The petitioner appealed to the CA
table, Winnie and Arnaldo had a incomplete justification, and without whose decision is now assailed in the
heated discussion regarding expertise any aggravating or mitigating present petition. The petitioner
in operating a chainsaw. Winnie circumstances attendant, he is essentially claims that the RTC and
grabbed the shirt collar of Arnaldo in imposed an indeterminate sentence of the CA erred in failing to recognize the
the course of the heated six (6) years of prision correccional, existence of all the elements of self-
exchange.37 The petitioner advised as minimum, to ten (10) years defense.
them to calm down, but Winnie struck of prision mayor, as maximum, with
THE COURT'S RULING
him (petitioner) on the head with a the corresponding accessory
beer bottle three times. Vicente also penalties, and to pay death indemnity
We resolve to deny the petition
tried to strike Arnaldo, but the latter of P50,000.00 to the heirs of Winnie for lack of merit.
managed to duck and so he (Joemar) Alon, in the service of his sentence he
took the hit instead. Thereafter, he shall be credited the period that he Plea of Self-Defense
and Arnaldo engaged Vicente.38 undergone [sic] preventive
imprisonment, conformably with Art. We note at the outset that the
29 of the Code. petitioner does not deny that he killed
Winnie. He expressly made this As the lower courts did, we do not 1. Anyone who acts in defense of
admission in his testimony of July 15, recognize that the petitioner fully his person or rights, provided that
1999: acted in self-defense. the following circumstances
concur;
ATTY. VILLAREAL: As a rule, the prosecution bears the
burden of establishing the guilt of the First. Unlawful aggression;
Q: And what did you do when he accused beyond reasonable doubt.
struck you with the bottle? cralawred

However, when the accused admits Second. Reasonable necessity of

the killing and, by way of justification, the means employed to prevent or
NOEL GUILLERMO: pleads self-defense, the burden of repel it;
evidence shifts; he must then show by
A: I was able to move backward and I Third. Lack of sufficient
clear and convincing evidence that he
realized that I have a knife on [sic] provocation on the part of the
indeed acted in self-defense. For that
the back of my waist. person defending himself.
purpose, he must rely on the strength
of his own evidence and not on the
Q: And what did you do with your As a justifying circumstance, self-
knife? weakness of the prosecution's
defense may be complete or
evidence.41
cralawred

incomplete. It is complete when all

A: I then stabbed him. the three essential requisites are
The elements that the accused must
establish by clear and convincing present; it is incomplete when
Q: How many times?
evidence to successfully plead self- the mandatory element of unlawful
cralawred

A: About three times as far as I can defense are enumerated under Article aggression by the victim is
remember.40 [Emphasis supplied] 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code: present, plus any one of the two
essential requisites.42
The petitioner justifies the stabbing as ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. -
an act of self-defense. The following do not incur any In the present case, we find it beyond
criminal liability: dispute that the victim Winnie started
the fight that ended in his death; he
struck the petitioner on the head
when the latter intervened to pacify aggression confronting the accused, evidence shows that indeed the
the quarrel between Winnie and the means employed to repel this petitioner suffered the following
Arnaldo. In short, the victim was the attack, the surrounding circumstances injuries:
unlawful aggressor while the of the attack such as its place and
petitioner was in the lawful act of occasion, the weapons used, and the 1. Contusion Hematoma 2 x 3 left
pacifying the quarreling parties; thus, physical condition of the parties - parital area just above the left ear.
the latter has in his favor the element which, when viewed as material
of unlawful aggression by the considerations, must show rational 2. Linear abrasion 3 - 4 cm left hand
victim. equivalence between the attack and medial side.
the defense.43 In People v.
We consider it also established that 3. Linear abrasion 2 - 3 cm left head
Escarlos,44 this Court held that the
the petitioner did not provoke the ulnar side.46
means employed by a person invoking
fight that ensued; he was a third self-defense must be reasonably The weapons that caused these
party to the quarrel between the commensurate to the nature and the
injuries were a beer bottle and, quite
original protagonists - Winnie and extent of the attack sought to be
possibly, fingernails as the victim and
Arnaldo - and did not at all initiate any averted. In Sienes v. People,45 we the appellant grappled with each
provocation to ignite the quarrel. considered the nature and number of other.47 In contrast, the victim
Thus, the petitioner also has the wounds inflicted on the victim as
suffered three stab wounds: at the
element of lack of sufficient important indicia material to a plea for
neck, at the abdomen and in the
provocation in his favor. self-defense. chest. The weapon used was a
The third element - the Batangas knife that admittedly
In the present case, the attack on the
reasonableness of the means to repel belonged to the petitioner. Thus, the
petitioner came as he intervened in a
the aggression - is the critical element physical evidence in the case stands.
quarrel between the victim and
that the lower courts found lacking in another party. As we concluded
The petitioner claims self-defense on
the petitioner's case. Generally, above, we deem it established that
the position that Winnie, after hitting
reasonableness is a function of the the victim was the unlawful aggressor him on the head three times with an
nature or severity of the attack or who attacked the petitioner. Physical empty bottle, grabbed another bottle,
broke it against the wall, and thrust it area above the left ear. Unless the aimed at vital parts of the body, thus
towards him. It was at this point that three (3) beer bottle blows that the pointing against a conclusion that the
the petitioner used his knife to inflict petitioner alleged all landed on the petitioner was simply warding off
Winnie's fatal wounds. Clearly, the same site - a situation that could have broken beer bottle thrusts and used
petitioner wants to impress upon us incapacitated the petitioner - the more his knife as a means commensurate to
that his response to Winnie's attack plausible conclusion from the physical the thrusts he avoided. To be precise,
was reasonable; he used a knife to evidence is that the petitioner the petitioner inflicted on the
repel an attacker armed with a broken received only one blow, not three as victim: one stab wound at the
beer bottle. he claimed. Contrary to what the chest, 6-8 cms. deep, at the 5th rib
petitioner wishes to imply, he could clavicular area, or in plainer terms, in
Several reasons militate against our not have been a defender reeling from the area of the victim's
acceptance of the petitioner's version successive head blows inflicted by the heart; another was at the neck, 5
and interpretation of events. victim. cms. deep, just above the
breastbone; and a last one was in
First, there is intrinsic disproportion Third, the victim, Vicente, and Eddie, the abdominal area, 3-5 cms.
between a Batangas knife and a were already drunk when they arrived deep. The depth of these wounds
broken beer bottle. Although this at the restaurant before the fatal shows the force exerted in the
disproportion is not conclusive and fight. This state of intoxication, while petitioner's thrusts while the locations
may yield a contrary conclusion not critically material to the stabbing are indicative that the thrusts were all
depending on the circumstances, we that transpired, is still material for meant to kill, not merely to disable
mention this disproportionality purposes of defining its surrounding the victim and thereby avoid his
because we do not believe that the circumstances, particularly the fact drunken thrusts.
circumstances of the case dictate a that a broken beer bottle might not
contrary conclusion. have been a potent weapon in the Fifth, in appreciating the facts, the
hands of a drunk wielder. RTC and the CA were one in the
Second, physical evidence shows that conclusion to disbelieve the
the petitioner suffered only one Fourth, and as the CA aptly observed petitioner's allegation of complete
contusion hematoma at the parietal as well, the knife wounds were all
self-defense, as reflected in the CA's solely on is own testimony to buttress are to be given the highest respect;
further cogent observations that: his defense. the trial court enjoys the unique
advantage of being able to observe, at
(b) If, indeed the deceased picked up (d) The Municipal Trial Court close range, the conduct and
another bottle of beer, hit the same conducted a preliminary investigation deportment of witnesses as they
against the wall, resulting in the of the "Criminal Complaint" filed testify. These factual findings, when
breakage of the bottle, and with it, hit against the Appellant, Arnaldo, and adopted and confirmed by the CA, are
the Appellant anew, it behooved the Joemar. However, the Appellant did final and conclusive and need not be
Appellant to have rushed posthaste to not submit any "Counter-Affidavit" reviewed on the appeal to us. We are
the police station and report the claiming that he was impelled to stab not a trier of facts; as a rule, we do
stabbing, with the request that a Winnie three (3) successive times on not weigh anew the evidence already
policeman be dispatched to the locus mortal parts of his body and killing passed on by the trial court and
criminis and confirm the presence of [sic] him because Winnie picked up a affirmed by the CA.49 Only after a
broken pieces of beer bottle in the bottle, hit the same against a wall and showing that the courts below
restaurant. The Appellant did not. He hit the Appellant anew with the ignored, overlooked, misinterpreted,
and his companions, Arnaldo and broken bottle.48 [Underscoring in the or misconstrued cogent facts and
Joemar, fled from the scene, via the original] circumstances of substance that would
back door, and escaped on board a alter the outcome of the case, are we
motorcycle. We see no reason to disturb these justified in undertaking a factual
findings as they are based on existing review. No such exceptional grounds
(c) Neither Arnaldo, Joemar, or evidence, and the conclusions drawn obtain in this case.
Babylou corroborated the claim of the therefrom are patently reasonable.
Appellant that, after the Appellant We have time and again held that the In sum, we rule that there was no
boxed Winnie, who lost his hold of the findings of facts of the trial court, its rational equivalence between the
bottle of beer, he picked up another assessment of the credibility of means of the attack and the
bottle and struck the bottle of beer witnesses and the probative weight of means of defense sufficient to
against the wall and hit the Appellant their testimonies, and the conclusions characterize the latter as
with the bottle. The appellant relied based on the these factual findings reasonable.
The Proper Penalty "reasonable means," the mayor has to be reduced by one
petitioner is, therefore, entitled to degree without taking into account the
The imposable penalty for homicide the privileged mitigating attendant modifying circumstances.
under Article 249 of the Revised Penal circumstance of incomplete self- The penalty lower by one degree
Code is reclusion temporal in its full defense. Consequently, the penalty is prision correccional whose range is
range.50 Article 69 of the Code for homicide may be lowered by one from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
however provides that: or two degrees, at the discretion of The trial court is given the widest
the court. discretion to fix the minimum of the
ART. 69. Penalty to be imposed when indeterminate penalty provided that
the crime committed is not wholly The penalty which the RTC imposed such penalty is within the range
excusable. - A penalty lower by one or and which the CA affirmed lowered of prision correccional.
two degrees than that prescribed by the penalty of reclusion temporal by
law shall be imposed if the deed is not one degree, which yields the penalty The CA affirmed the indeterminate
wholly excusable by reason of the lack of prision mayor. From this penalty, penalty of six (6) years prision
of some of the conditions required to the maximum of the indeterminate correccional, as minimum, to ten (10)
justify the same or to exempt from penalty is determined by taking into years of prision mayor, as maximum,
criminal liability in the several cases account the attendant modifying as imposed by the RTC on petitioner.
mentioned in Articles 11 and 12, circumstances, applying Article 64 of We affirm this to be the legally correct
provided that the majority of such the Revised Penal Code.51 Since no and proper penalty to be imposed
conditions be present. The courts shall aggravating nor mitigating upon petitioner.
impose the penalty in the period circumstance intervened, the
which may be deemed proper, in view maximum of the indeterminate We also affirm the P50,000.00 death
of the number and nature of the penalty shall be prision mayor in its indemnity awarded to Winnie's heirs,
conditions of exemption present or medium period whose range is from 8 in accordance with prevailing
lacking. years and 1 day to 10 years. jurisprudence.52

Since the petitioner's plea of self- To determine the minimum of the We add that moral damages should be
defense lacks only the element of indeterminate penalty, prision awarded as they are mandatory in
murder and homicide cases without
need of allegation and proof other
than the death of the victim.53 The
award of P50,000.00 as moral
damages is, therefore, in order.

WHEREFORE, in light of all the

foregoing, we DENY the petition. The
assailed decision and resolution of the
CA dated November 15, 2001 and
April 5, 2002, respectively, in CA-G.R.
CR No. 24181 are AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the
petitioner is ordered to pay the heirs
of Winnie Alon the amount
of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.