Peolpe vs. Tica (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JONATHAN TICA

G.R. No. 222561, August 30, 2017 

PERALTA, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant Jonathan Tica was indicted for Murder in stabbing Eduardo Intia. Prosecution witnesses told that they saw Intia sitting while facing the seashore and they noticed Tica passed by, holding a knife and proceeding towards Intia. When he went near him, the latter tried to stand up and run away, but he fell down to the sea face up. He was immediately stabbed about six times while Tica was on top of him.

In his claim for self-defense, Tica claimed he saw Intia running towards him to attack. Upon seeing that Intia brought with him a long-necked bottle with broken edges, Tica tried to evade by swimming towards the sea. They submerged themselves in the seawater while grappling with each other. Tica held Intia’s feet until he reached the latter's left waistline and held his knife, which he used to stab him on his left breast. As a result, Intia released Tica, who, upon standing up, again stabbed him.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant may validly claim self-defense.

Ruling: No. The essential elements of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful aggression12 on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

If indeed the victim had a knife tucked in his waistline, he could have made use of it instead of the broken bottle just to ensure the death of the accused if ever. He could have stabbed the accused instead of drowning him first. Even assuming that the unlawful aggression emanated from Intia, the means employed by Tica was not reasonably commensurate to the nature and extent of the alleged attack that he sought to prevent. In this case, Intia was unarmed when he allegedly attacked Tica. Considering that Tica is taller, had a bigger body built, and younger than Intia, he could have simply engaged him in a fistfight. Instead, using his own knife, Tica chose to fatally stab Intia about six times, which caused the victim’s eventual death.

Ratio Decidendi: Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense; if there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modifications the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Cagayan de Oro City.

People vs. De Chavez, J.r. (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DIONISIO DE CHAVEZ, JR.

G.R. No. 229722, December 13, 2017

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant de Chavez was charged with murder. On March 17, 2005, accused-appellant was arrested. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the RTC. Hence, accused-appellant filed a final appeal to the Supreme Court. During the pendency appeal, accused-appellant had died on December 9, 2016 at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital.

Issue: Whether or not criminal liability of de Chavez is extinguished.

Ruling: Yes. Paragraph 1, Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides the effect of death of the accused on his criminal and civil liabilities, to wit:

ART. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to the pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

 It is clear that the death of accused-appellant, during the pendency of his appeal, extinguished not only his criminal liability, but also his civil liabilities arising from or based on the crime. But, as held in Bayotas, accused-appellant’s civil liability may be based on other sources of obligation other than ex delicto, in which case the heirs of the victim may file a separate civil action against the estate of accused appellant, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed.

Gist: Before the Court is an appeal filed by accused-appellant Dionisio de Chavez, Jr. assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Rosario, Batangas, Branch 87. 

People vs. Campit, et.al. (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CRESENCIO CAMPIT & EMILIO MACAWILI

G.R. No. 225794, December 6, 2017

MARTIRES, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant Cresencio and Emilio, who were apparently drunk, passed by the store of Leon. Emilio stayed on the other side of the road, while Cresencio approached Leon. Cresencio pressed Leon to lend him money but the latter did not heed his request. Suddenly, Cresencio pulled out a knife from his waist and repeatedly stabbed Leon five times, more or less. Leon turned away from Cresencio and attempted to escape, but he was met by Emilio who grabbed his left shoulder and stabbed him on his chest. Leon fell on his back in front of the bodega, while Cresencio and Emilio ran away and fled.

The RTC and CA held that the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength attended the killing of Leon.

 Issue: Whether or not the circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present.

 Ruling: No, abuse of superior strength did not attend the commission of the felony.

For the qualifying circumstance to be appreciated, it must be shown that the aggressors combined forces in order to secure advantage from their superiority in strength. Thus, it had been held that when the victim was attacked by the assailants alternatively, the claim that the accused abused their superior strength could not be appreciated.

In this case, only Cresencio approached Leon while the latter was in his bodega. Thereafter, Cresencio, following an argument, stabbed Leon multiple times. It was only when Leon escaped from Cresencio that Emilio appeared and stabbed the victim on his chest. Considering that the perpetrators attacked the victim alternatively and did not combine their superior strength to overwhelm the victim, they could not be said to have taken advantage of their superior strength.

Ratio Decidendi: For the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength to be appreciated, it must be proven that the accused simultaneously assaulted the deceased.

 Gist: On appeal is the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63, finding herein accused-appellant Cresencio Campit guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

People vs. Kalipayan (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL KALIPAYAN

G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018

GESMUNDO, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of murder committed against Glaiza when, at around 5:45 p.m., he entered Glaiza’s house without permission, approached Glaiza who was preparing dinner, stabbed her in the back and held her hair. The victim’s mother tried to stop accused-appellant but the latter poked the knife at her, telling her not to interfere as it was none of her business. When accused-appellant was gone, Glaiza was brought to the hospital where she was declared dead on arrival.

 Accused-appellant claimed that he confronted Glaiza because he believes that the latter was having an affair with another man. Glaiza was angry at him, and thereafter went to the kitchen, and he followed her. Accused-appellant took a knife from the sink and threatened Glaiza, causing the latter to slap him and when the latter lost control, he started stabbing Glaiza, and he could not remember the number of times he stabbed her.

 Issue: Whether or not the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

 Ruling: Yes, treachery is present in this case. Treachery constitutes two (2) elements: (1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and (2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

First, the accused-appellant unexpectedly entered the house, went straight for Glaiza, and immediately, without warning and through an almost stealthy manner, stabbed the latter numerous times. There was no heated discussion immediately prior to the incident. Glaiza was attacked in the back, with accused-appellant holding her hair to prevent her from moving. Second, the mode of attack, of suddenly entering the house and going straight to where Glaiza was while the latter was preparing food, is also clearly indicative of his nefarious plan to attack when Glaiza was not in a position to defend herself.

 Ratio Decidendi: A swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim is an indication that treachery is present.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 34, finding accused-appellant Amel Kalipayan guilty of murder.

People vs. Panerio (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. YOLANDO B. PANERIO

G.R. No. 205440, January 15, 2018

MARTIRES, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant Panerio and Orteza were charged with murder in an Information which alleges that the said accused, with treachery, attack ELESIO UNG by stabbing him with the use of a fan knife (balisong) and ice pick, thereby inflicting upon the said Elesio Ung mortal wounds which caused his immediate death.

In his defense as the sole witness, Panerio argued that Elesio and his companion called him and Orteza and offered them drinks but they refused. Feeling disrespected, Elesio got mad and boxed Panerio. When Panerio fell to the ground, Elesio rushed towards him and attempted to stab him with a knife twice, but missed. Elesio tried to stab Panerio for a third time, but the latter was able to hit the former's hand causing the knife to fall. Panerio picked up the knife off the ground and stabbed Elesio with it three times.

 Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant had acted in self-defense.

 Ruling: No, accused-appellant had not acted in self-defense.

The accused must establish the essential requisites of self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Panerio's uncorroborated testimony regarding the incident is unclear and unconvincing. His assertion that Elesio, then drunk, boxed him and attempted to stab him is unsubstantiated by any convincing proof. Moreover, the post-mortem findings reveal that Elesio sustained eleven stab and puncture wounds. Considering the quantity, nature, and location of the wounds sustained by Elesio, the Court finds Panerio's plea of self-defense incredible.

Ratio Decidendi: In a plea of self-defense, the accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because it could no longer be denied that he admitted to be the author of the victim's death or injuries.

Summary: On appeal is the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 12, finding accused-appellant Yolando B. Panerio and accused Alex F. Orteza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

People vs. Reyes

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ENRIQUE REYES

G.R. No. 224498, January 11, 2018

TIJAM, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant was charged with murder in an Information which alleges that the said accused, with treachery, attack DANILO ESTRELLA Y SANCHEZ by firing his armalite rifle at said Danilo who was then walking home and hitting him on different parts of the body, depriving the latter of a chance to defend himself from the attack thereby inflicting upon him mortal gunshot wounds which caused his immediate death.

Invoking self-defense, accused-appellant argued that he was informed by Aelardo that Danilo and four other men are planning to kill him. Fearing for his family's safety, accused-appellant prepared his Armalite rifle. When Celia was on her way to accused-appellant's house, she saw a man holding a gun approaching accused-appellant from behind. When Celia shouted "Ricky," accused-appellant turned towards Celia and saw Danilo holding a gun in the act of shooting him. Accused-appellant drew and fired his Armalite rifle, hitting Danilo who fell on the ground.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant can validly claim self-defense.

Ruling: Self-defense cannot be validly claimed. By invoking self-defense, the burden of proof shifted to accused-appellant to show that the killing was attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person invoking self-defense.

In this case, accused-appellant claimed that when Celia shouted his name, he saw Danilo who was about to shoot him. However, based on Celia's testimony, Danilo was only approaching accused-appellant while holding a gun. Celia did not witness any positive act showing the actual and material unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The accused-appellant is held guilty of murder.

Ratio Decidenci: Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense, for if no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is unavailing for there is nothing to repel.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, modifying accused-appellant PFC Enrique Reyes' conviction from Murder to Homicide, and the CA's Resolution which denied his Motion for Reconsideration.

People vs. Alapan

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SALVADOR ALAPAN

G.R. No. 199527, January 10, 2018

MARTIRES, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant Salvador Alapan and his wife Myrna Alapan were charged with 8 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 after they borrowed ₱400,000.00 and issued 8 postdated checks in favor of petitioner Brian Victor Britchford. The checks were dishonored when they were deposited. Upon arraignment, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The Municipal Trial Court convicted Salvador Alapan of 8 counts of violation of B.P. Big. 22 with a penalty of fine instead of imprisonment. After a writ of execution was issued, the writ was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner thus filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty for respondent's failure to pay the fine imposed by the MTC.

 The MTC denied the motion on the ground that subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency was not imposed in the judgment of conviction.

 Issue: Whether or not respondent may undergo subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay fine.

 Ruling: Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must be expressly stated in the judgment of conviction. Article 78 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed.  xxx xxx  

A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby. 

Here, the judgment of conviction did not provide subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the penalty of fine. Thus, subsidiary imprisonment may not be imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: No person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

Gist: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution, dated 22 November 2011, of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition seeking the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of fine in eight (8) cases of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.