FACTS
In the early morning of August 24, 2002, Diosdado Pido was shot, stabbed, and hacked in Barangay Guinciaman, San Miguel, Leyte. He sustained 26 wounds and died from his injuries. Edgar Concillado, together with his brother Erlito and wife Dolores, was charged with murder, the Information alleging conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. All three accused pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented Lorenzo Viñas, who testified that he and Pido had attended a fiesta and were returning home when, from approximately 10 meters away, he saw Edgar shoot Pido with a homemade firearm. After Pido fell, Edgar and Dolores allegedly approached and stabbed him, after which Erlito joined them and hacked the victim with a bolo. The three accused then left the scene. Pido's sister also testified regarding the expenses incurred by the family.
Edgar admitted that he killed Pido but claimed self-defense. He testified that while he was urinating near his house, Pido suddenly appeared and challenged him to a fight before hacking him with a bolo. Edgar claimed that he fired his homemade firearm and subsequently fought Pido with a bolo until Pido turned his back and appeared to flee. Edgar then returned home and eventually surrendered to the police. The defense also presented evidence that Edgar had sustained three superficial wounds.
The RTC found all three accused guilty of murder and sentenced each to death. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals found Lorenzo's testimony unreliable, acquitted Erlito and Dolores, and found Edgar guilty only of homicide, rejecting his claim of self-defense. Edgar appealed to the Supreme Court, maintaining that he acted in self-defense. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that he should be convicted of murder.
ISSUE
The first issue was whether Edgar Concillado was entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether there was unlawful aggression by Diosdado Pido and, if so, whether the other requisites of self-defense were present.
The second issue was whether Edgar was guilty of murder or only homicide. The Court had to determine whether treachery (alevosía) or evident premeditation was sufficiently established to qualify the killing as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The third issue was whether Edgar was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and, consequently, what penalty should be imposed if he was found guilty of homicide. The Court also considered the proper civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages payable to the victim's heirs.
HELD
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with MODIFICATIONS. Edgar Concillado was held GUILTY of HOMICIDE, not murder. The Court rejected his claim of self-defense because he failed to establish unlawful aggression, which is indispensable to the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
Under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code, self-defense requires the concurrence of three elements: (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. The Court emphasized that unlawful aggression is the most important element and must first be established before self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, can be considered.
The Court found no unlawful aggression on Pido's part. The RTC had found that Edgar was approximately one and a half meters from the fence while he was urinating and that Pido was outside the fence, which was approximately four feet high. Pido's body was later found on the road, approximately eight meters from Edgar's house, and there were no traces of blood inside Edgar's yard. The Court also noted the great disparity in injuries: Pido sustained 26 incised, stab, and bullet wounds, while Edgar sustained only three superficial wounds. Moreover, Edgar admitted during cross-examination that he continued inflicting injuries upon Pido even after Pido was already lying lifeless on the ground.
The Court nevertheless agreed with the Court of Appeals that the killing was homicide rather than murder. The prosecution's eyewitness testimony had been discredited by the Court of Appeals, leaving no sufficient evidence establishing how the attack began or how it was carried out. Consequently, there was no adequate proof of treachery. The Court likewise found no evidence showing when Edgar decided to kill Pido, what overt act manifested his determination to kill, or that sufficient time had elapsed for him to reflect upon his decision. Thus, evident premeditation was also not established.
The Court appreciated voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. The police blotter showed that Edgar voluntarily presented himself to the police on August 24, 2002 and admitted that he had killed Pido. The Court found his surrender spontaneous and unconditional and considered it sufficient to qualify as voluntary surrender under the Revised Penal Code.
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. Because voluntary surrender was the only mitigating circumstance, Article 64(2) required the penalty to be imposed in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court imposed upon Edgar the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
The Court retained the award of ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity, restored the ₱50,000.00 moral damages because moral damages in homicide and murder cases are mandatory upon the death of the victim, and awarded ₱25,000.00 temperate damages because the heirs suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proven by receipts. All monetary awards were subject to 6% interest from the finality of the decision until fully paid.
No comments:
Post a Comment