Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-33304 December 13, 1930

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

Alberto Reyes for appellant.

VILLAMOR, J.:

Facts:

The Sotelo brothers, namely, Constante, Dominador, and Vicente, were prosecuted in the Court
of First Instance of Ilocos Sur for the crime of homicide under the following information:

The record shows that at about 8 o'clock in the evening of the 24th of December, 1929, Ignacio
Cambaliza started for the barrio of Ravadabia, in the municipality of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur,
accompanied by Baltazar Capistrano. When Ignacio Cambaliza saw this, he walked back to
where Constante Sotelo stood and inquired why he turned his flashlight on them, and what it
was he wanted, winding up with a vulgar remark.

The said accused Constante, Dominador, and Vicente Sotelo, armed with a penknife, a stick,
and an iron bar, respectively, acting together and helping one another, did willfully, maliciously,
unlawfully, and feloniously with treachery and evident premeditation attack, beat up, and commit
assault upon the person of Ignacio Cambaliza, inflicting a mortal wound upon him on the level of
the left nipple, which penetrated the left lung and the left ventricle of the heart, another on the
outward surface of the right arm, a bruise on the nose and another on the upper lip: as a result
of which said Ignacio Cambaliza died after a few minutes.

Contrary to law; with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

After the trial, the court below found the defendant Constante Sotelo guilty of the crime of
homicide, and the defendants Vicente and Dominador Sotelo of slight physical injuries.
The appellant admits he inflicted the injury which resulted in Ignacio Cambaliza's death, but
maintains he did so in self-defense. The defendant Constante Sotelo appealed from this
judgment.

Issue: WoN Constante Sotelo can validly interpose self defense for justifying his act of killing
Ignacio Cambaliza.

Held:

No. Constante Sotelo cannot validly interpose self defense for justifying his act of killing Ignacio
Cambaliza. The court accepted the testimony of the witness Capistrano when he stated that he
and the deceased saw the three brothers, Constante, Dominador, and Vicente Sotelo in the
yard of the house; that one of these brothers was the first to make insulting remarks to
Cambaliza, and that while the two brothers were attacking Cambaliza, Constante stabbed him in
the chest with a penknife on account that the testimony was given two days after the incident
and it has been corroborated by the witnesses for the defense. The court ruled this is a case of
incomplete self-defense, wherein the appellant was unlawfully attacked by the deceased and
compelled to employ reasonable means to defend himself, but he is responsible for provoking
the attack.
G.R. No. 188602 February 4, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

Facts:

On May 17, 2003 at nine o’clock in the evening, the deceased Leo Salvador Regis,
private complainants Randy Marcelo, Jefferson Gallemit, Jaypee Boneo and Alexis Dalit
were talking to each other in front of the house of the deceased at 477 Narra St.,
Cembo, Makati City. They noticed the presence of appellant along the street and
thought that appellant would just pass by. However, when appellant was two (2) arms
length away in front of them, appellant suddenly raised his arm and shot the deceased
Regis with a .45 caliber pistol. After he was hit on the chest, Regis said "Aray!,"
embraced Randy Marcelo who was seated on his left, and fell off his chair to the ground
(TSN, June 2, 2004, pp. 8-11, 17-26).

Jefferson Gallemit, Jaypee Boneo and Alexis Dalit stood from their seats. Appellant
fired several shots thereafter, one of which hit Dalit’s arm. Boneo and Gallemit ran up
the street while Dalit ran in the opposite direction and hid behind a car. In the meantime,
the deceased Leo Salvador Regis and Randy Marcelo were still huddled together at the
spot where the deceased fell. Appellant stayed at the same spot where he fired the first
shot even after the three ran away.

Appellant for his part asserted self-defense. He testified that He passed by a bakery
owned by Barangay Captain Leo Magbantay when he noticed a group of five youngsters who
were at the right side of the street. While walking, one in the group cursed him and shouted
"tang ina mo!" Since he was the only passerby, he stopped and looked at them, but two (2) from
the group approached him. He was suddenly boxed by Regis Ado, while Dalit was just beside
Ado. When he fell on the ground, Ado continuously beat him, then suddenly, a gun fell from Leo
Regis. He immediately got hold of it, and when Leo Regis was supposed to attack him again, he
kicked Leo which made him collapsed and shot the deceased Regis with a .45 caliber pistol and
fell to the ground.

Jefferson Gallemit, Jaypee Boneo and Alexis Dalit stood from their seats. Appellant fired several
shots thereafter, one of which hit Dalit’s arm. Boneo and Gallemit ran up the street while Dalit
ran in the opposite direction and hid behind a car. In the meantime, the deceased Leo Salvador
Regis and Randy Marcelo were still huddled together at the spot where the deceased fell.
Appellant stayed at the same spot where he fired the first shot even after the three ran away.
Appellant then pursued Dalit down the street but did not catch him, Dalit then sought refuge at
BLISS Makati and contacted the police from there. Not finding credence in appellant's claim of
self-defense, the RTC convicted him of murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder on
three (3) counts:

Appellant assails the trial court and the CA for giving credence to the prosecution’s evidence.
He admits having killed Regis and wounding Dalit, but insists that he did so in self-defense.

Issue: WoN the defendant can validly interpose self-defense to justify the crimes he committed.

Held: No. In this case, appellant cannot interpose self-defense to justify the crimes he
committed for the court believed that he utterly failed to discharge the burden of proving
unlawful aggression. His version of the events was uncorroborated, and his testimony was
found to be less credible by the trial court. On the other hand, the surviving victims were
unanimous that appellant suddenly fired at them, without any provocation on their part. The
credibility of the prosecution witnesses had been weighed by the trial court, and it found their
testimonies to be more convincing. As a rule, the appellate court gives full weight and respect to
the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, since the trial judge has the
best opportunity to observe their demeanor.

The pieces of evidence gleaned by the trial court, the facts, are enough to show that treachery
was employed by appellant. The attack was sudden, as testified to by the witnesses, and
unexpected. Provocation on the part of the victims was not proven, and appellant’s testimony
that the victims were about to attack him cannot be given credence. The victims had no inkling
that an attack was forthcoming and had no opportunity to mount a defense. Thus, treachery was
correctly appreciated as a circumstance to qualify the crime to murder.

The court also affirm the CA ruling that appellant is guilty of attempted murder, not of frustrated
murder, in Criminal Case No. 03-3640 for the injury sustained by Dalit. No convincing proof was
offered to show that the wound inflicted on Dalit was fatal and would have caused his death had
medical help not been provided. It is well settled that where the wounds inflicted on the victim
are not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, as the accused had
not performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the victim's death.24
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 192581

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Present:

- versus -

CORONA, J., Chairperson,

VELASCO, JR.,

DENNIS D. MANULIT, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

Accused-Appellant. PERALTA,* and

PEREZ, JJ.

Promulgated:

November 17, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:

The Case

The Facts

The charge against accused-appellant stemmed from the following Information:

The facts culled from the records are as follows:

Anabel Bautista and her live-in partner, Reynaldo Juguilon, were walking along Dagupan
Extension, Tondo, Manila on their way home when they passed by accused-appellant Manulit,
who was sitting in front of his house across the barangay hall. Upon seeing them, Manulit stood
up and successively shot Reynaldo at the back, resulting in the latters death. He then tucked
the gun in his waist, raised his hands, and shouted, O, wala akong ginawang kasalanan at wala
kayong nakita. (I did not do anything wrong, and you saw nothing.) And he ran towards the
direction of the basketball court adjoining the barangay hall.

The witness, Lydia Juguilon, decided to issue a statement before the prosecutor of Manila.1

She saw Manulit in front of his house, while Reynaldo was walking two arms length ahead of
Anabel towards the direction of their house. The place was well lighted.2 Suddenly, she heard a
gunshot, and when she turned her head to where the sound came from, she saw Manulit firing
successive shots at Reynaldos back until Reynaldo fell to the ground.3

the possession of the gun until they reached the alley near the barangay hall where Manulit got
hold of the gun.1 Suddenly, Reynaldo opened a fan-knife.1 This caused Manulit to shoot

Reynaldo several times, causing him to turn around.1 He dropped the gun and went straight to
the house of his parents and told them what happened.1 His cousin, Marvin Manulit,
corroborated his testimony.
Ralphy Villadolid, another witness, corroborated Lydias testimony.4 Ralphy’s contention was the
same with that of Lydia.

Reynaldos father, Eduardo Juguilon, testified as to the funeral and other miscellaneous
expenses he incurred due to the death of his son.5

In his defense, Manulit offered a story of self-defense. He testified that on July 6, 2006, at about
9:00 p.m., he asked his cousin, Marvin Manulit, to have a drink with him. While they were
drinking, Reynaldo barged in holding a gun with both his hands.6 He appeared not to be his
normal self with reddish eyes, as if high on drugs.7 Reynaldo poked the gun at Manulit and said,
Ano, Dennis.8 Manulit stood up and countered, Anong ano?9 They then grappled for

The Issues:

Manulit contends in his Brief that:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS SELF-DEFENSE;

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND

1. The appeal has no merit.

In finding accused-appellant guilty, the trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses credible, while it found the testimony of accused-appellant very self-serving, viz:

The testimonies of the above-mentioned prosecution witnesses were given at the earliest
possible opportunity. the trial court found no ill motive on the part of any of the prosecution
witnesses. The presumption is that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and was
untainted by bias, and, thus, entitled to full faith and credit.11

Moreover, the fact that accused-appellant fled and was only arrested five years later belies his
claim of innocence.

In the instant case, accused-appellant failed to prove the existence of unlawful

2.

In the case at bar, the victim was only walking along the street when accused-appellant
suddenly shot him at the back several times. He had no opportunity to defend himself, because
he had no inkling that an attack was forthcoming. It likewise appears that the means was
deliberately planned. What is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the
victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.12 Evidently, treachery attended the
killing.

Noteworthy also is the fact that accused-appellant harbored a deep-seated grudge against the
victim, since the victim filed a case against accused-appellant before the Office of the City
Prosecutor.
3. In conclusion, all the elements of the crime of murder, as defined in par. 1, Art. 248 of the
RPC, were successfully proved: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that
person; (3) that the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not infanticide or
parricide.13

THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184343

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Present:

QUISUMBING, J.,*

CARPIO,**

- versus - CARPIO MORALES,***

CHICO-NAZARIO, and

Acting Chairperson,

PERALTA, JJ.

JESUS DOMINGO, Promulgated:

Accused-Appellant.

March 2, 2009

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Facts:

Complainant Raquel Indon and her minor children Melissa, Michelle, Marvin and Jeffer
were sleeping inside their house in Caingin, San Rafael, Bulacan, when she was awakened by
the sound of appellant kicking their door open. appellant repeatedly stabbed her, using the six-
inch screwdriver, and hit her right arm three times. The appellant proceeded to stab Marvin.
Marvin died as a result of these injuries. Melissa died because of the stab wounds that the
appellant inflicted on her; while Michelle, who was able to hide under the papag merely
sustained serious physical injuries. The appellant also attacked two-year-old Jeffer by striking
him on the head with the screwdriver, but the latter managed to run to the house of Raquels
sister-in-law. Raquel got up and ran for help, but the appellant followed her. Their neighbor,
Ronaldo Galvez, came to their rescue and tried to subdue the appellant. Raquel, thereafter, lost
consciousness. Appellant inflicted wounds on Galvezs upper left chest and arms, after which
Galvez was able to hit appellant with a piece of wood, which rendered the latter unconscious.

The court charged him with criminal liabilities for the above-mentioned felonies.

In his defense, appellant testified that prior to the incident, he was in good terms with the Indon
family and that he had no record of mental illness. Occasionally, a voice would tell him to kill
and suffered sleeplessness, lack of appetite, nervousness and his hearing of imaginary voices.
Hence, he tried to interpose insanity as a defense.

Issue: WoN insanity can be validy interpose as a defense by appellant to exempt him from
criminal liabilities

Held:

No. The RTC gave credence to the principal eyewitness, Raquel Indon, whose testimony was
corroborated by Michelle Indon, regarding appellants attack on 29 March 2000. The trial court
found the appellants defense of insanity unmeritorious, since what was presented was proof of
appellants mental disorder that existed five years after the incident, but not at the time the
crimes were committed. The RTC also considered it crucial that appellant had the presence of
mind to respond to Raquel Indons pleas that her daughters be spared by saying, Ngayon pa,
nagawa ko na.

Even assuming that appellants testimony is credible, his sleeplessness, lack of appetite,
nervousness and his hearing imaginary voices, while suggestive of an abnormal mental
condition, cannot be equated with a total deprivation of will or an absence of the power to
discern. Mere abnormality of mental faculties will not exclude imputability.

The trial court found the testimony of Raquel Indon more credible than that of the accused, and
its findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.