Case Digest: People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido Mara y Bolaqueña alias “Loloy”

G.R. No. 184050                08 May 2009                       

Ponente: Velasco, JR, J.

FACTS:

In the evening of the 27 February 1999, Marcelino Balos held a party at his house in Bukidnon.  As per the host, while seated at the table, the appellant suddenly hacked the victim, Gaudencio Perater, on the right side of his neck with a bolo.  According to Marcelino’s nephew, there were no words exchanged between the victim and the accused prior to the attack.

The appellant’s version states that Gaudencio was drinking with Marcelino and his nephew when the accused asked where his brother is.  Gaudencio insulted the appellant’s brother and where a fight ensued.  Upon being warned that Gaudencio was about to stab him, the appellant hit the victim’s neck in self-defense.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery should be appreciated; and
2. Whether the accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense should be appreciated.

RULING:

1.   Considering the sudden manner of the attack which was done in a party, leaving the victim’s guard down and defenseless, and the lack of provocation from the victim as testified by witnesses, the qualifying circumstance of treachery is to be appreciated.  The crime therefore is murder under paragraph 1 of Article 248 of the RPC.
2. For self-defense to occur, the defense must prove that there was (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation from the person claiming self-defense.  The first of these elements is required, and as there was only the appellant’s testimony that the victim was about to stab him as opposed to the testimonies by witnesses, it was found that the latter’s testimonies were more credible than that of the accused – that there was no attack coming from the victim’s end. Unlawful aggression is absent; thus, the accused-appellant’s claim for self-defense fails.

Case Digest: People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Gayeta y Roblo alias “Freddie”

G.R. No. 171654                17 December 2008

Ponente: Torres, Jr., J.

FACTS:

While spouses Benjamin and Conchita were drinking tuba in their home, two armed men barged into their house and declared a hold-up who were later identified as herein appellant and one Reano.  Benjamin was kicked and boxed until the latter bled and lost consciousness, by which Conchita surrendered P2,500.  The two armed men then left and barged into another couple’s home and demanded them for money.  The wife, accompanied by the appellant, went to their store to get money.  In the store, the appellant forced the wife to have sexual intercourse with him.  After they had returned to their home, she told her husband that she had been sexually abused.  The husband had an altercation with the two perpetrators which resulted in him being hit on the shoulder with a bullet.

The two denied that they took part in the crime claiming that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime for Gayeta was in Muntinlupa doing his rounds as a member of the Voluntary Lakas Brigade, while Reano was in another town.

ISSUE:  

Whether the accused was guilty of the crimes of robbery and robbery with rape with his presentation of the Voluntary Lakas logbook.

RULING:

The inherently weak alibi presented by the accused does not hold a stronger bearing as compared to the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses which is given full faith by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.  Furthermore, presented logbook was neither authenticated nor identified by the persons who supposedly issued them. 

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was properly appreciated in both robbery and robbery with rape.  There being no evidence to show that the accused purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense, this circumstance was ruled out.  The original penalty of death is therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole.

Case Digest: Amado Alvarado Garcia vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 171951                28 August 2009

FACTS:

The Fozes were having a drinking spree at their apartment when Chy asked them to quiet down to which Garcia commented that Chy was being arrogant and that one day he would lay a hand on him.  Two days later, the group decided to drink at a store owned by Chy’s sister, Esquibel.  Chy was about to come out of his house and upon being summoned, Garcia suddenly punched him.  Chy continued to parry the blows and when he found an opportunity to escape, he ran home and phoned his wife to call the police regarding the mauling.  He also complained of difficulty in breathing.  He was found later unconscious on the kitchen floor, salivating. 

Cause of death is heart attack to which Garcia appeals that the injuries he caused were not as violent in nature as to have caused the death of Chy.  Garcia pleaded not guilty to the crime of homicide.  The autopsy doctor confirms that the boxing and the striking of the bottle beer on the victim could not have caused any direct physical effect to cause the heart attack if the victim’s heart is healthy.  What could have caused said heart attack is the victims emotions concerning the violence inflicted upon him. 

ISSUE:  
Whether the circumstance of having no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated

RULING:

The circumstance that the petitioner did not intend so grave an evil as the death of the victim does not exempt him from criminal liability.  Since he deliberately committed an act prohibited by law, said condition simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal Code.  Nevertheless, said circumstance must be appreciated in favour of the petitioner.  The fact that the physical injuries he inflicted on the victim could not have naturally and logically caused the actual death of the victim, if the latter’s heart is in good condition. 

Considering this mitigating circumstance, imposable penalty should be in the minimum period, that is, reclusion temporal in its minimum period.  Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the trial court properly imposed upon petitioner an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.