February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 188971 : February 17, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. GREGORIO MONSANTO:
[G.R. No. 188971 : February 17, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. GREGORIO MONSANTO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 February 2010:
G.R. No. 188971 (People of the Philippines v. Gregorio Monsanto).-
This case pertains to the appreciation of the allegation of self-defense in a charge of murder.
The Facts and the Case
The public prosecutor of Caloocan City charged the accused Gregorio Monsanto of murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City in Criminal Case C-71428.
At the trial, the prosecution presented Conrado Garcia who testified that on November 15, 2003, at 9:45 in the evening, he was watching a basketball game near the house of Reynaldo Balatbat, known as Carding, when he heard the latter tell the kids outside not to light firecrackers in front of his house. Garcia was just an arm's length from Balatbat. As the latter turned around to go to his garage, accused Gregorio Monsanto told the kids to give him P10.00 for fare and "titirahin ko si Carding." After one of the kids gave Monsanto P10.0G, the latter followed Balatbat to his garage.
Overtaking Balatbat at his garage, Monsanto repeatedly stabbed him on the back with the long slim knife that Monsanto carried. Garcia witnessed all these at close range. The garage was well lit and its gate, open, providing Garcia with a clear view of what happened. Garcia was unable to help the victim because he feared that Monsanto might turn on him.
Dr. Romeo Salen testified that he examined Balatbat's corpse, finding six stab wounds and three incise wounds on it, which wounds, he concluded, caused Balatbat's death.
For his part, accused Monsanto said that he was at the basketball court near Balatbat's house when he heard the latter angrily snapped at the kids, ordering them not to throw firecrackers in front of his house. Monsanto stepped in, however, to pacify Balatbat when he started kicking the kids and driving them away. But, rather than calm down, Balatbat turned his ire on Monsanto, saying, "Bakit ka nakikialam, gusto mo ikaw patayin ko?" Balatbat then pulled a .45 caliber gun and pointed it at Monsanto, prompting the latter to stab Balatbat with a knife that he, Monsanto, had on him as protection from his cousins' enemies. He claimed stabbing Balatbat twice.
On September 28, 2007 the RTC found Monsanto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and pay Balatbat's heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P70,000.00 representing funeral and bunal expenses, and moral damages of P100,000.00.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03109, the latter rendered judgment on May 20, 2009, affirming the decision of the RTC but reducing the award of moral damages to P50,000.00 and additionally awarding P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Monsanto appealed to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA acted correctly in not giving credit to accused Monsanto's evidence that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed Balatbat to death.
The Ruling of the Court
The rule is that when the accused admits killing his victim but invokes self-defense to escape liability, the burden of proving the elements of such kind of defense rests on him.[1] He must sufficiently and convincingly prove: (1) that he faced unlawful aggression from the victim; (2) that he used necessary and reasonable means to repel the aggression; and (3) that he had not sufficiently provoked the victim into committing such aggression against him.[2] To have evidentiary value, the victim's unlawful aggression must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger of it, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[3] Here, unlawful aggression by Balatbat has not been shown.
Monsanto asserts that he acted in self-defense because Balatbat pointed a gun at him. But, apart from such bare claim, no other evidence proves it. Indeed, Garcia testified that Balatbat was unarmed when Monsanto stabbed him, Balatbat's brother testified that the deceased did not own a gun. The trial court gave credence to these testimonies for they were given clearly and categorically. The CA did not commit error in believing them, too. What is more, the trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine the facts.[4]
The nature, location, and number of wounds that accused Monsanto inflicted on Balatbat blurs the idea that Monsanto merely acted in self-defense.[5] Balatbat suffered six stab wounds and three incise wounds on his neck, shoulder, chest, ribs, and arms.[6] Only a mind predisposed to kill could aim his knife at the body of his victim with such abandon. These also negate Monsanto's claim that he stabbed Balatbat but twice in self-defense.
For treachery to be present, two conditions must exist: (a) that in attacking the victim, the assailant used means that did not give the victim any chance to retaliate or defend himself, and (b) that the assailant deliberately or consciously adopted such means.[7] Here, both the trial court and the CA correctly rule that these two conditions were met. Balatbat had just turned his back towards Monsanto, without the slightest foreboding of any danger, when Monsanto repeatedly stabbed him. The attack was so unexpected and irrational it caught Balatbat totally off guard.
While it is true that Dr. Salen entertained the possibility that the attack might have been frontal, this in itself, does not negate treachery. One or two wounds on the front side of Balatbat's body could result from a belated effort to face his attacker. Besides even a frontal attack can be regarded as treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed,[8] as in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03109 dated May 20, 2009 with its stated penalties and damages.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P, Perez, Members, Second Division, this 17th day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 188971 (People of the Philippines v. Gregorio Monsanto).-
This case pertains to the appreciation of the allegation of self-defense in a charge of murder.
The Facts and the Case
The public prosecutor of Caloocan City charged the accused Gregorio Monsanto of murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City in Criminal Case C-71428.
At the trial, the prosecution presented Conrado Garcia who testified that on November 15, 2003, at 9:45 in the evening, he was watching a basketball game near the house of Reynaldo Balatbat, known as Carding, when he heard the latter tell the kids outside not to light firecrackers in front of his house. Garcia was just an arm's length from Balatbat. As the latter turned around to go to his garage, accused Gregorio Monsanto told the kids to give him P10.00 for fare and "titirahin ko si Carding." After one of the kids gave Monsanto P10.0G, the latter followed Balatbat to his garage.
Overtaking Balatbat at his garage, Monsanto repeatedly stabbed him on the back with the long slim knife that Monsanto carried. Garcia witnessed all these at close range. The garage was well lit and its gate, open, providing Garcia with a clear view of what happened. Garcia was unable to help the victim because he feared that Monsanto might turn on him.
Dr. Romeo Salen testified that he examined Balatbat's corpse, finding six stab wounds and three incise wounds on it, which wounds, he concluded, caused Balatbat's death.
For his part, accused Monsanto said that he was at the basketball court near Balatbat's house when he heard the latter angrily snapped at the kids, ordering them not to throw firecrackers in front of his house. Monsanto stepped in, however, to pacify Balatbat when he started kicking the kids and driving them away. But, rather than calm down, Balatbat turned his ire on Monsanto, saying, "Bakit ka nakikialam, gusto mo ikaw patayin ko?" Balatbat then pulled a .45 caliber gun and pointed it at Monsanto, prompting the latter to stab Balatbat with a knife that he, Monsanto, had on him as protection from his cousins' enemies. He claimed stabbing Balatbat twice.
On September 28, 2007 the RTC found Monsanto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and pay Balatbat's heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P70,000.00 representing funeral and bunal expenses, and moral damages of P100,000.00.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03109, the latter rendered judgment on May 20, 2009, affirming the decision of the RTC but reducing the award of moral damages to P50,000.00 and additionally awarding P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Monsanto appealed to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA acted correctly in not giving credit to accused Monsanto's evidence that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed Balatbat to death.
The Ruling of the Court
The rule is that when the accused admits killing his victim but invokes self-defense to escape liability, the burden of proving the elements of such kind of defense rests on him.[1] He must sufficiently and convincingly prove: (1) that he faced unlawful aggression from the victim; (2) that he used necessary and reasonable means to repel the aggression; and (3) that he had not sufficiently provoked the victim into committing such aggression against him.[2] To have evidentiary value, the victim's unlawful aggression must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger of it, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[3] Here, unlawful aggression by Balatbat has not been shown.
Monsanto asserts that he acted in self-defense because Balatbat pointed a gun at him. But, apart from such bare claim, no other evidence proves it. Indeed, Garcia testified that Balatbat was unarmed when Monsanto stabbed him, Balatbat's brother testified that the deceased did not own a gun. The trial court gave credence to these testimonies for they were given clearly and categorically. The CA did not commit error in believing them, too. What is more, the trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine the facts.[4]
The nature, location, and number of wounds that accused Monsanto inflicted on Balatbat blurs the idea that Monsanto merely acted in self-defense.[5] Balatbat suffered six stab wounds and three incise wounds on his neck, shoulder, chest, ribs, and arms.[6] Only a mind predisposed to kill could aim his knife at the body of his victim with such abandon. These also negate Monsanto's claim that he stabbed Balatbat but twice in self-defense.
For treachery to be present, two conditions must exist: (a) that in attacking the victim, the assailant used means that did not give the victim any chance to retaliate or defend himself, and (b) that the assailant deliberately or consciously adopted such means.[7] Here, both the trial court and the CA correctly rule that these two conditions were met. Balatbat had just turned his back towards Monsanto, without the slightest foreboding of any danger, when Monsanto repeatedly stabbed him. The attack was so unexpected and irrational it caught Balatbat totally off guard.
While it is true that Dr. Salen entertained the possibility that the attack might have been frontal, this in itself, does not negate treachery. One or two wounds on the front side of Balatbat's body could result from a belated effort to face his attacker. Besides even a frontal attack can be regarded as treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed,[8] as in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03109 dated May 20, 2009 with its stated penalties and damages.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P, Perez, Members, Second Division, this 17th day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd)MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd)MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] People v. Ronquillo, 317 Phil. 912, 917 (1995).
[2] REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 11 (1).
[3] Escoto v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 305, 313 (1997).
[4] People v. Batidor, 362 Phil. 673, 682 (1999).
[5] People v. Bitoon, 368 Phil. 511,522 (1999).
[6] Medico-Legal Report No. W-2003-647, records, pp. 113-114.
[7] People v. Albacin, 394 Phil. 565, 583 (2000).
[8] People v. Saliling, 319 Phil. 288, 292 (1995), citing People v. Abapo, G.R. Nos. 93632-33, December 28,1994, 239 SCRA 469, 480.
