February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 168714 : February 08, 2010] LEOPOLDO ESPIRITU V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 168714 : February 08, 2010]
LEOPOLDO ESPIRITU V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 February 2010:
G.R. No. 168714: LEOPOLDO ESPIRITU v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Before the Court is a petition for review[1] assailing the 28 February 2005 Decision[2] and 8 June 2005 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.-CR No. 23204.
In a Decision dated 24 February 1999,[4] the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite, Branch 19 (trial court) convicted petitioner for the crime of Frustrated Homicide. The trial court sentenced petitioner to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period of 10 years and one day to 12 years and to pay P60,000 representing the cost of medical attendance and expenses incurred by the victim Rodrigo Santero (Santero).
Petitioner appealed from the trial court's decision, alleging that he acted in self-defense and in defense of one Alejandro Monton. Petitioner likewise alleged that the trial court erred in not appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, in imposing the maximum penalty notwithstanding the absence of any aggravating circumstance, and in failing to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) in imposing the penalty.
In the assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals held that self-defense or defense of a stranger must be established as convincingly as possible. The Court of Appeals ruled that the element of unlawful aggression was not proven. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner "embroiled himself voluntarily into an affray which became a free-for all scuffle, where it was not clear who the aggressor or the victim was." Hence, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court in finding that petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals modified the penalty imposed by applying the ISL, as follows:
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision. In its 8 June 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit.
Hence, the petition before this Court.
Petitioner raises the following issues in his petition:
We affirm the Court of Appeals' decision.
Petitioner claims self-defense and defense of stranger to justify the stabbing of Santero.
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
For self defense to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (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.[7]
On the other hand, defense of stranger requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (3) the person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.[8]
Whether petitioner acted in self-defense, or in defense of a stranger, is a question of fact.[9] In this case, petitioner failed to prove the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner voluntarily joined the fight and it was not clear who among the participants was the aggressor or the victim.
When self-defense is invoked as a defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[10] Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, or when it is extremely doubtful by itself[11] The same is true when the defense of stranger is invoked. In both instances, the accused admits the killing and the burden is on him to prove self-defense or defense of stranger. The accused cannot simply rely on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. Hence, the Court finds no reason to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the 28 February 2005 Decision and 8 June 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals inCA-G.R.-CRNo. 23204.
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 10th day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 168714: LEOPOLDO ESPIRITU v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Before the Court is a petition for review[1] assailing the 28 February 2005 Decision[2] and 8 June 2005 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.-CR No. 23204.
In a Decision dated 24 February 1999,[4] the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite, Branch 19 (trial court) convicted petitioner for the crime of Frustrated Homicide. The trial court sentenced petitioner to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period of 10 years and one day to 12 years and to pay P60,000 representing the cost of medical attendance and expenses incurred by the victim Rodrigo Santero (Santero).
Petitioner appealed from the trial court's decision, alleging that he acted in self-defense and in defense of one Alejandro Monton. Petitioner likewise alleged that the trial court erred in not appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, in imposing the maximum penalty notwithstanding the absence of any aggravating circumstance, and in failing to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) in imposing the penalty.
In the assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals held that self-defense or defense of a stranger must be established as convincingly as possible. The Court of Appeals ruled that the element of unlawful aggression was not proven. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner "embroiled himself voluntarily into an affray which became a free-for all scuffle, where it was not clear who the aggressor or the victim was." Hence, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court in finding that petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals modified the penalty imposed by applying the ISL, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED but the assailed February 24, 1999 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite, Branch [1]9 is hereby MODIFIED, in that the Indeterminate Sentence law is hereby applied, and the accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as the minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as the maximum.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision. In its 8 June 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit.
Hence, the petition before this Court.
Petitioner raises the following issues in his petition:
(1) Whether the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch [1]9, Bacoor, Cavite is proper under the circumstances; and
(2)Whether the prosecution had proven the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[6]
We affirm the Court of Appeals' decision.
Petitioner claims self-defense and defense of stranger to justify the stabbing of Santero.
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful Aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
2. xxx
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
xxxx.
For self defense to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (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.[7]
On the other hand, defense of stranger requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (3) the person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.[8]
Whether petitioner acted in self-defense, or in defense of a stranger, is a question of fact.[9] In this case, petitioner failed to prove the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner voluntarily joined the fight and it was not clear who among the participants was the aggressor or the victim.
When self-defense is invoked as a defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[10] Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, or when it is extremely doubtful by itself[11] The same is true when the defense of stranger is invoked. In both instances, the accused admits the killing and the burden is on him to prove self-defense or defense of stranger. The accused cannot simply rely on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. Hence, the Court finds no reason to reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the 28 February 2005 Decision and 8 June 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals inCA-G.R.-CRNo. 23204.
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 10th 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] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Rollo, pp. 62-70. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Ali�o-Hormachuelos and Juan Q. Enriquez. Jr.
[3] Id. at 80.
[4] Id. at 19-24. Penned by Judge Novato T. Cajigal
[5] Id. at 69-70.
[6] Id. at 9.
[7] People v. Galvez, 424 Phil. 743 (2002).
[8] People v. Trapane, 436 Phil. 671 (2002).
[9] People v. Galvez, supra.
[10] Razon v. People, G.R. No. 158053, 21 June 2007, 525 SCRA 284.
[11] Id.