ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 181430 : March 9, 2010 FELIPE RONQUILLO y GUILLERMO and GILBERT TORRES y NATALIA, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. D E C I S I O N CARPIO MORALES, J.: Herein appellants Felipe Ronquillo (Ronquillo) and Gilbert Torres (Torres) were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ballesteros, Cagayan of homicide under an Information reading x x x x That on or about June 23, 2001 in the [M]unicipality of Ballesteros, [P]rovince of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, Felipe Ronquillo y Guillermo and Gilber[t] Torres y Natal[i]a, armed with shovel and bamboo, conspiring together and helpin[g] each other, with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hit with the said shovel and bamboo one Edgar Ronquillo y Paranaque, inflicting upon him wounds on his head which caused his death.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary CONTRARY TO LAW. x x x x The following facts are established.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary On June 23, 2001 at 5:30 p.m., while appellants, together with Alejandro Rivera (Rivera), were drinking near the store of Henry Ugale, Edgar Ronquillo (the victim), a first cousin of appellant Ronquillo, passed by as he repaired to the store to buy cigarettes. As Ronquillo followed the victim at the store, a heated argument ensued between them during which the two boxed each other. Ronquillo thereafter twice kicked the victim who drew out his knife which hit Ronquillo at his left thigh. Torres joined the fray and struck the victim on the nape with a shovel. As the victim lay unconscious on the ground, Ronquillo repeatedly hit him with a bamboo pole on the head and on different parts of his body. The death certificate
cralawRonquillo and Torres, interposing self-defense, gave the following version: A heated argument arose when the victim called Ronquillos father a "wicked witch." Ruling out self-defense, the trial court held, quoted verbatim: The testimony of the two accused is not credible. If the victim chased Gilbert with a knife, [the victim] could have inflicted injuries on [Gilbert]. If it is true that Gilbert struck [the victim] at the napewhy did the victim still go to Felipe who is away from him and stabbed him on his thigh. [The victim] could have stabbed Gilbert first because he was the one who clubbed him. The testimony of the accused is unnatural. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) By Decision of June 30, 2005, WHEREFORE, premises considered[,] the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused Felipe Ronquillo and Gilbert Torres beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the Court sentences the accused Felipe Ronquillo and Gilbert Torres to suffer a penalty of eight (8) years and four (4) months to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay the heirs of the victim solidarily in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil [indemnity] due to the death of the victim, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as actual damages and to pay the cost.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The accused are entitled in full of their preventive imprisonment. SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary By Decision of July 27, 2007, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan, in Criminal Case No. 33-483-2001 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellants Felipe Ronquillo y Guillermo and Gilbert Torres y Natalia are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accused-appellants are also hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of the victim Edgar Ronquillo, the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages which is hereby DELETED. The appealed Decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects. The damages awarded herein and those affirmed in the appealed judgment are to be paid, jointly and severally, by both accused-appellants. SO ORDERED. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) Hence, the present petition for review.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Justifying their actions, petitioners assert that unlawful aggression emanated from the victim who was armed with a knife; that the means adopted by them were reasonably necessary to repel the victims aggression; and that they did not provoke the victim whom they merely invited for a drink. And petitioners contend that there was no sufficient, direct and clear evidence to establish conspiracy in the killing of the victim. The petition fails.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary As did the trial and appellate courts, the Court finds that petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving the circumstances to justify their actions.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement that the presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-defense to be warranted. The testimony of the lone prosecution witness Rivera that the aggression emanated not from the victim but from petitioner Ronquillo himself impresses the Court. Consider his following testimony, quoted verbatim:
cralawUnlawful aggression presupposes an actual and imminent peril. That the injury Ronquillo sustained was not serious or severe dovetails with the narration of prosecution witness Rivera that the victim used his knife to parry the second kick of Ronquillo.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In stark contrast, the victim sustained severe head injuries that resulted in hernia and hemorrhage, and a fracture on his humerus or upper arm. The gravity, location, and number of injuries he sustained undoubtedly negate self-defense on petitioners part.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Further denting Ronquillos defense is his admission that he had been harboring a grudge against the victim.
cralawRespecting Torres claim that he was attacked by the victim, the testimony of the prosecution witness who has not been shown to be a biased witness belies the same:
cralawBut even assuming arguendo that unlawful aggression initially came from the victim, the aggression ceased when the victim already lay prostate on the ground at which time there was no longer any need to further inflict injuries on him. For there was no longer any imminent risk to petitioners lives or personal safety.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Besides, petitioners had the opportunity to run away from the victim as, by their claim, he was even walking "groggily" due to drunkenness. It bears noting that petitioners enjoyed superiority in number (two) over the victim. And the means they used was out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Court finds then that unlawful aggression was not present on the victims part. Discussion of the rest of the elements of self-defense is thus rendered unnecessary.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary On the issue of conspiracy, the Court finds well-taken the appellate courts appreciation of the presence thereof, viz: x x x Considering that herein [petitioners] already admitted the killing of Edgar Ronquillo, the issue therefore of conspiracy is irrelevant simply because the participation of the [petitioners] in the killing of Edgar Ronquillo has already been established. For even if conspiracy was not proven, the fact that the two accused each inflicted a serious wound which contributed to the death of the victim makes them co-principals. Finally, since petitioners invoke justifying circumstances to exonerate themselves, any discussion on conspiracy is extraneous as these two concepts are incompatible with each other. For conspiracy presupposes a community of criminal intent, WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO cralaw Endnotes:
|
|