People vs. Agapinay

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROMEO AGAPINAY, ALEX AGAPINAY, FORTUNATO AGAPINAY, DANTE AGAPINAY,
DELFIN AGAPINAY and CIRILO AGAPINAY, accused-appellants.
Facts:
Agapinays brothers, except Romeo, who is Delfin's son, and that along with Virgilio Paino, Amor
Flores, and Eufemio Paino, they were hirelings of Julia Rapada, an operator of fishing boats.
They unloaded their catch and spread out their fishnet on the sand to dry. Thereafter, except for
Romeo, they mended the net, with thread and small knives, under portable shed. Meanwhile,
Virgilio took the shed and placed it where he and Alex and Cirilo were. Moments later, Romeo
appeared and confronted Virgilio, and berated him for taking the shed without permission.
Virgilio said that they were going to use it. The two exchanged words and tempers apparently
flared. Romeo lunged at Virgilio with a hunting knife, six inches long that hit his right arm. Virgilio
ran away but Delfin and Fortunato met him and held on to his arms. Romeo approached him
and dealt him a second stab at the right side of his back. Virgilio, however, managed to extricate
himself again and ran away. While he was running, Delfin, Alex, Fortunate, Dante, and Cirilo
took turns in stoning him. All of a sudden Amor Flores appeared and plunged a knife at the back
of Virgilio. It was then that Virgilio collapsed.
Romeo Agapinay, who had been tagged as the knife-wielder, alleged that Virgilio suddenly
appeared at the shore "uttering bad words to his father Delfin."1 Virgilio then allegedly struck
Cirilo Agapinay and his father with a paddle. He stated that he was forced to stab Virgilio three
times. Virgilio allegedly later went home alone.
The trial judge rejected the accused's claim of defense of relative and convicted all six accused
of the crime of murder, attended by treachery.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery.
Whether or not the accused acted in defense of relative
Whether or not the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance
Held:
TREACHERY
There is further no doubt that murder has been committed, but not because of treachery, as
ruled by the trial court. Treachery depends on the suddenness of the attack, by which the victim
is rendered hors d'combat, as in an ambuscade, or any manner in which the victim is deprived
of all defenses, and in which the malefactor faces no risk to himself. The manner of attack must
be shown. There is no such showing here.
The fact that Delfin and Fortunato Agapinay held Virgilio Paino while Romeo stabbed him, does
not demonstrate treachery. Rather, what it proves is abuse of superiority. It is indeed plain from
the records that the trio of Romeo, Delfin, and Fortunato had taken advantage of their strength
to overcome the victim who, at that time, was already injured. Abuse of superiority qualifies the
taking of the life of another into murder
DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
As we noted, the trial court repudiated the accused's posturing of defense of relatives, so also
do we. "Defense of relatives" requires the concurrence of three elements: (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) the
person defending the relative had no part in provoking the assailant, should any provocation
have been given by the person attacked. Of these three requisites, "unlawful aggression" is said
to be the most essential and primary, without which any "defense" is not possible or justified.
Thus: "If there is no unlawful aggression there would be nothing to prevent or repel." In that
event, not even incomplete self-defense can be validly invoked.
The Court is not persuaded that Virgilio Paino had acted with unlawful aggression that might
have provoked the Agapinays' deadly wrath. The records show that all that Virgilio did was to
address offensive language to Delfin Agapinay. In one case, this Court held that 'injurious
words or threats do not amount to unlawful aggression. Assuming that Virgilio did strike
Delfin and Romeo Agapinay with a paddle, the expedients reveals that thereafter and upon
having been stabbed in the right arm by Romeo, he, Virgilio, ran away. It has also been ruled
that: "Self-defense does not justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is
retreating from the fray."
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
The Court finds, however, that the accused should be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of provocation (or vindication of a grave offense or passion or
obfuscation). Since clearly, the deceased uttered offending words ("vulva of your mother,
if you are talking as if you have no debts, not like me, I have no debts") that made the
Agapinays, especially Romeo, react violently.

People vs. Agapinay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Agapinay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Agapinay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Whether or not the accused acted in defense of relative

Whether or not the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance

You might also like