SECOND DIVISION.
RICARDO BALUNUECO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
126968
April 9, 2003
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS
ANDTHE PEOPLE
OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:
On appeal by certiorari
is the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals affirming with modifications the decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 68, convicting
accused
RICARDO BALUNUECO of homicide for the death of Senando Iguico and
frustrated
homicide for injuries inflicted upon his wife Amelia Iguico.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Of the five (5)
original
accused,[3]
only petitioner Ricardo, accused Reynaldo, Juanito, all surnamed
Balunueco,
and Armando Flores were indicted in two (2) Informations, the first for
homicide[4]
and the second for frustrated homicide.[5]
Again, of the four (4) indictees, only Ricardo and Reynaldo were
brought
to the jurisdiction of the court a quo, while Juanito and Armando have
remained at large. Accused Reynaldo died on 17 November
1986.
Accordingly, as against him, the criminal cases were
dismissed.
Thus, only the criminal cases against petitioner Ricardo Balunueco are
subject of this appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As principal witness
for the prosecution, Amelia Iguico narrated that on 2 May 1982 at
around
6:00 o’clock in the evening she was coddling her youngest child in
front
of her house at Bagong Tanyag, Taguig, when she saw accused Reynaldo,
his
father Juanito and brothers Ricardo and Ramon, all surnamed Balunueco,
and one Armando Flores chasing her brother-in-law Servando
Iguico.
With the five (5) individuals in hot pursuit, Servando scampered into
the
safety of Amelia’s house.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, according
to private complainant Amelia, her husband Senando, who was then
cooking
supper, went out of the house fully unaware of the commotion going on
outside.
Upon seeing Senando, Reynaldo turned his attention on him and gave
chase.
Senando instinctively fled towards the fields but he was met by Armando
who hit him with a stone, causing Senando to feel dizzy.
Reynaldo,
Ricardo, and Armando cornered their quarry near a canal and ganged up
on
him. Armando placed a can on top of Senando’s head and Ricardo
repeatedly
struck Senando with an ax on the head, shoulder, and hand. At one
point, Ricardo lost his hold on the ax, but somebody tossed him a bolo
and then he continued hacking the victim who fell on his knees.
To
shield him from further violence, Amelia put her arms around her
husband
but it was not enough to detract Ricardo from his murderous
frenzy.
Amelia was also hit on the leg.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Maximo Reyes, NBI
Senior Medico-legal officer, declared that on 3 May 1982 he conducted a
post mortem examination on the body of the deceased Senando Iguico and
issued an Autopsy Report, which contained the following findings:[7]
(a) two (2) stab wounds and nine (9) gaping hack wounds; and, (b) cause
of death was hemorrhage, acute, profuse, secondary to multiple stab and
hack wounds.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his defense, accused
Ricardo narrated a different version of the incident. He
testified
that at that time he was fetching water when he heard somebody
shouting:
"Saya, saya, tinataga," referring to his brother Reynaldo.
When he hurried to the place, he saw his brother Ramon embracing
Senando
who was continuously hacking Reynaldo. Thereafter, Senando shoved
Ramon to the ground and as if further enraged by the intrusion, he
turned
his bolo on the fallen Ramon. Ricardo screamed, "tama na yan, mga
kapatid ko ‘yan." But the assailant would not be pacified as he hacked
Ramon on the chest. At this point, Servando,[8]
the brother of Senando, threw an axe at him but Reynaldo picked it up
and
smashed Senando with it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Manuel Flores, another
witness for the defense, gave a substantially similar version of the
story.
He testified that on the fateful day of the incident, while doing some
carpentry work in front of his mother’s house, he saw Senando Iguico,[9]
a.k.a. "Bulldog," with a bolo on hand trailing brothers Reynaldo alias
"Sayas" and Ramon while walking towards Bagong Bantay. Suddenly,
Senando confronted the two (2) brothers and started hacking Reynaldo,
hitting
him on the head, arm and stomach. Seeing that his brother was
absorbing
fatal blows, Ramon embraced Senando but the latter shoved him (Ramon)
and
directed his fury at him instead. Ricardo went to the rescue of
his
brothers but he too was hacked by Senando.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court disbelieved
the version of accused Ricardo, thus he was found guilty of homicide in
Crim. Case No. 49576 and frustrated homicide in Crim. Case No.
49577.
It reasoned that the testimony of Amelia Iguico was clear, positive,
straightforward,
truthful and convincing. On the other hand, according to
the
trial court, the denial of Ricardo was self-serving and calculated to
extricate
himself from the predicament he was in. Further, the trial
court added that the wounds allegedly received by Ricardo in the hands
of the victim, Senando Iguico, if at all there were any, did not prove
that Senando was the aggressor for the wounds were inflicted while
Senando
was in the act of defending himself from the aggression of Ricardo and
his co-conspirators.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court of Appeals
sustained the conviction of accused Ricardo, giving full faith to the
direct
and positive testimony of Amelia Iguico who pointed to him as the one
who
initially axed her husband Senando on the head, shoulder and hand.[11]
While the appellate court upheld the conviction of Ricardo of homicide
for the death of Senando Iguico, it however ruled that his conviction
for
the wounding of Amelia Iguico, although likewise upheld, should be for
attempted homicide only. On the wounding of Amelia, the appellate
court had this to say -[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For while intent to
kill was proven, Amelia’s hack wound in her left leg was not proven to
be fatal or that it could have produced her death had there been no
timely
medical attention provided her, hence, the stage of execution of the
felony
committed would only be attempted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner now imputes
errors to the Court of Appeals: (a) in not taking into
consideration
the fact that petitioner, if indeed he participated, had acted in
defense
of relatives; (b) in giving due credence to the self-serving and
baseless
testimony of Amelia Iguico, the lone and biased witness for the
prosecution;
and, (c) in failing to consider the several serious physical injuries
sustained
by petitioner and his brother Reynaldo Balunueco.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a reprise of his
stance at the trial, petitioner argues that assuming he participated in
the killing of Senando, he acted in defense of his full-blood
relatives:
Reynaldo whom he personally witnessed being boloed by the deceased in
the
arms, head and stomach; and Ramon who also became a victim of the
deceased’s
fury after he was pushed by the deceased and had fallen to the
ground.
Under such circumstances, the act of Senando in hacking him after he
tried
to rescue his brothers, gave rise to a reasonable necessity for him to
use a means to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression.
Considering
further that there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part, his
acts were therefore justified under Art. 11, par. (2), of The Revised
Penal
Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In effect, petitioner
invokes the justifying circumstance of defense of relatives under Art.
11, par. (2), of The Revised Penal Code. The essential elements
of
this justifying circumstance are the following: (a) unlawful
aggression;
(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
and, (c) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the
one making the defense had no part therein.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Of the three (3) requisites
of defense of relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua
non,
for without it any defense is not possible or justified. In order
to consider that an unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is
necessary
that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively
determining
the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made; a
mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify
the commission of an act which is punishable per se, and allow a claim
of exemption from liability on the ground that it was committed in
self-defense
or defense of a relative. It has always been so recognized in the
decisions of the courts, in accordance with the provisions of the Penal
Code.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Having admitted the
killing of the victim, petitioner has the burden of proving these
elements
by clear and convincing evidence. He must rely on the strength of
his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution,
for
even if the prosecution evidence is weak it cannot be disbelieved if
the
accused has admitted the killing.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
petitioner Ricardo utterly failed to adduce sufficient proof of the
existence
of a positively strong act of real aggression on the part of the
deceased
Senando. With the exception of his self-serving
allegations,
there is nothing on record that would justify his killing of Senando.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First, Ricardo’s theory
that when he reached the crime scene he found Senando repeatedly
hacking
his brother Reynaldo who thereafter retaliated by smashing an axe on
the
victim’s head is implausible in light of the seriousness of the wounds
sustained by the deceased as compared to the minor injuries inflicted
upon
petitioner and his two (2) brothers. The fact that three
(3)
of the assailants suffered non-fatal injuries bolsters the fact that
Senando
tried vainly to ward off the assaults of his assailants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second, Ricardo failed
to present himself to the authorities. He may have accompanied
the
injured Reynaldo to the hospital after the encounter but still he
failed
to present himself to the authorities and report the matter to
them.
The natural impulse of any person who has killed someone in defense of
his person or relative is to bring himself to the authorities and try
to
dispel any suspicion of guilt that the authorities might have against
him.
This fact assumes a more special significance considering that his
co-accused,
Juanito and Armando, have remained at large.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third, petitioner had
a rather erratic recollection of people and events. He vividly
remembered
how Reynaldo was injured by Senando but conveniently failed to recall
the
events leading to the fatal wounding of the deceased. At
another
point, he testified that Reynaldo axed Senando but later retracted his
statement by declaring that it was in fact Senando who hacked Reynaldo.[15]
We observe that the killing occurred within or near the premises of the
deceased. This proves per adventure the falsity of petitioner’s
claim
that it was Senando, rather than he and his kin, who had initiated the
unlawful aggression.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, private
complainant pointed to petitioner as one of the principal actors in the
slaying of her husband Senando and the court a quo found her testimony
worthy of belief. The unbending jurisprudence is that
findings
of trial courts on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled
to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[16]
The lower court also declared, and we agree, that private complainant’s
relationship with the deceased does not disqualify her from testifying
in the criminal case involving her relative or automatically sully her
testimony with the stain of bias.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the injuries sustained
by Amelia, we are of the opinion that, contrary to the finding of the
lower
court as affirmed by the appellate court, petitioner’s homicidal intent
has not been indubitably established. As held in People v.
Villanueva,[17]
the intent to kill being an essential element of the offense of
frustrated
or attempted homicide, said element must be proved by clear and
convincing
evidence, and with the same degree of certainty as required of the
other
elements of the crime. The inference of intent to kill
should
not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such
intent
beyond reasonable doubt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts as borne out
by the records do not warrant a finding that petitioner intended to
kill
Amelia. Contrarily, the circumstances of the instant case
indicate
the opposite: (a) that while petitioner was repeatedly assaulting the
deceased,
Amelia embraced her husband in an attempt to avert further infliction
of
pain upon him; and, (b) when he hit Amelia once on the left leg, a
wound
of slight nature, he did not do anything more to pursue his homicidal
urge[18]
but instead allowed her to scurry away. This set of details
reinforces this Court’s belief that petitioner had no intention of
killing
Amelia but nonetheless wounded her either because she unwittingly
exposed
herself in the so-called "line-of-fire" when she embraced her husband,
or that it was intended more to deter her from further
interfering.
Had killing Amelia actually crossed petitioner’s mind, he would have
opted
to hit his quarry on the vital portions of her body or strike her
several
times more to attain his objective. But these he never did.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering that the
injuries suffered by Amelia were not necessarily fatal and required a
medical
attendance of four (4) days,[19]
we hold that the offense committed by petitioner is only that of slight
physical injuries. Under Art. 266, par. (1), of The Revised
Penal Code, this is punishable by arresto menor the duration of which
is
from one (1) to thirty (30) days.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals in Crim. Case No. 49576 finding
petitioner
Ricardo Balunueco guilty of Homicide is AFFIRMED, and there being no
mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance, petitioner is sentenced to an
indeterminate
penalty of six (6) years, two (2) months and ten (10) days of
prision
mayor minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and
twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, his civil liability to the
heirs
of Senando Iguico is fixed at P50,000.00. The assailed
Decision
in Crim. Case No. 49577 for Attempted Homicide, on the other hand, is
MODIFIED.
Petitioner Ricardo Balunueco is found guilty only of Slight Physical
Injuries
for the wounding of Amelia Iguico, and is accordingly sentenced to
suffer
a straight prison term of ten (10) days of arresto menor, and to pay
the
costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Decision penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, (now with
this Court), concurred in by Associate Justices Nathanael P. De Pano,
Jr.,
and Fermin A. Martin, Jr., First Division, Court of Appeals, CA-G.R. CR
No. 13446.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Decision penned by Judge Willelmo C. Fortun, RTC-Br. 68, Pasig City.
[3]
Ricardo Balunueco (accused-appellant), Reynaldo "Sayas" Balunueco,
Juanito
Balunueco, Ramon Balunueco and Armando Flores.
[4]
Docketed as Crim. Case No. 49576.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Docketed as Crim. Case No. 49577.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, 12 February 1985, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exh. "C."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Brother-in-law of the victim Senando Iguico per private complainant’s
testimony.
[9]
"Armando Eguico" in some parts of the records.
[10]
Rollo, p. 49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 33.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 36-37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
US v. Guy-Sayco, 13 Phil. 292 (1909).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
People v. Emberga, G.R. No. 116616, 26 November 1999, 319
SCRA
304.
[15]
TSN, 24 January 1990, p. 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People v. Mana-ay, G.R. No. 132717, 20 November 2000,
345 SCRA 213.
[17]
51 Phil. 488 (1928).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, 12 September 1985, p. 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id. at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
The Revised Penal Code, art. 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |