REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 01 December 2021 which reads as follows:

''G.R. No. 252457 (People of the Pl~ilippines v. Dionicio * Ville y

Santo:il). ~ Challenged in this appec;1.l I is the October 10, 2019 Decision2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09300, which affirmed the
March 20, 2017 Decision·1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69,
Taguig City in Criminal Case No. 153212, finding accused-appellant Dionicio
Ville y Santos (Ville) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide
for the death of his son Danilo Ville y Bona (Danilo).

The accusatory portion of thv lnformation4 reads as fo llows:

That on or about the 171h -day of J,rnlmry 20 14, in the City of Taguig,
Philippines and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-narned
accused, with intent to kW and without the justifiable caust~, did, then and there
wi llfully, unlawfully and feloniol)sly attack and shot with improvised shotgun
(sumpak) one DAJ,fLLO VJLLE .Y HONA, bis so11, which directly and
instantm1eously caused his death, said killing .having been attended by the
qualifying circumstance of relationship which qualifies the killing to Parricide,
accused beipg the biological father of the victim, to the damage and prejudice of
the heirs of the said victim.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

During the arraignment, Ville plead~d not guilty. 0 He also interposed the
justifying circumstance of self-defense du.ring pre-trial conference and moved for

* Also spelled as " Dionisio" in some p,11ts of the records.

1
Rollo, pp. 11 - I J. Captioned as Notice of Appeal.
2
Id . at 3-10. Penned by Associate Justici;: Gtirmi-1110 Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate
Justices Rem~dios A. Salazar-Fernando and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court).
3
CA rollo, pp. 40-44. Penned by Judge l ,orifel Lacap Pahimna,
4
Records, pp. 1,2.
Jd. at I.
0
Id. at 36.

(149)URES - more -
 Resolution 2 G.R. No. 252457

the conduct of a reversed trial, which the trial court granted in its Order7 dated July
28, 2014.

Version of the Prosecution;

The prosecution presented the te.stimonies of Ville's former live-in partner

and the victim's mother, Shirley Hema (Shirley), 8 and Ville's daughter and the
victim's young(tr sister, Nina Rose Ville (Nina)9 .

Shirley alleged that at around 1;00 in th~ morning of January 17, 2014, she
was awakened by a heated argument between Ville and his son, Danilo. She heard
Ville go downstairs and moments lat~_r, she hec,1,rd a gunshot. Upon hearing this,
Shirley rushed out of her room to check what happened. She then saw Danila's
body on the floor, covered w.ith blood. Shirley and her other children brought
Danilo to the hospital but was pronounced dead on aITival. Shirley further claimed
that Danilo was nursing a grudge towards Ville because he abandoned them and
even brought home another woman to their house. 10

Meanwhile, Nina testified that she arrived home at around 1:00 in the
morning of Januar; 17~ 2014. When she was about to enter their house, she heard
Danilo t<tlking about his long-time grudge towards Ville to his drinking buddies.
Infuriated, Ville told Danilo, ''nanghihirmn ka Jang ng tapang sa alak," 11 to which
Danilo retorted, "kung gusto mo tapusin na natin ito tqy." 12 At this juncture, Ville
took out his sumpak and allegedly told Danilo, "kung gusto rno ilabas mo dito ang
tapang mo." 13 Danilo~ who ,vas then unarmed, s1-1ddenly attacked Ville not knowing
that the latter was armed. After the incident, Ville hid the sumpak in a canal and
ran awa.y. 14

Version of the Defense:

The defense presented Ville and 1vfarilou San Pedro (Marilou).

Ville alleged that he came home from work at around 4:00 p.m. of January
16, 2014 when he saw his son, Danilo, having a, drinking spree with their neighbors
to celebrate the birthday of his grandson. At around 10:00 p.m. of the same day, -
Ville went out of their house to buy cigarette when he overheard Danilo ba~-
mouthing him to his drinking-buddies describing him as a useless father. This
prompted Ville t<;> respond in this wise "nanghira,n ka nq nm-nan ng tapang sa alak,
tama na yan, magpahinga na kayo ai may pasokpa kayo bukas nakakahiya sa mga
lcapitbahay." 15 Danj_lo then answered, "bakit ako na Zang ang nakikita mo, bakit

Id. at 64.
8
Id. at 8-9. Sinumpaang Sa/aysay of Shirley Hon a y De Guzman.
9
Id. at 10-12. Sinumpaang Sa!aysay of Nina Rose Ville y Hona.
t(• Id. at 9.; TSN, May 19, 2015, June 16, 20 15 and August 25, 2015.
11
Id. at 11.
i2 Id.
13 Id.
I~ Id.
15
fd. at 67.

(1 49)URES - more -
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 252457

hindi mo tingnan ang sarili mo?" 16 At that point, Ville told Danilo that he will just
talk to him the next day and thereafter went upstairs. 17

Since Danilo continued to curse, Ville went down again and there he saw
Danilo holding a pipe which appeared to be a "sumpalc' while uttering the words,
"tapusin na natin to tay." 18 Danilo allegedly aimed the sumpak at Ville, which
compelled the latter to grapple for the possession thereof. During the struggle,
however, the sumpak accidentally fired and Danilo's body fell on the ground
covered with blood. At t11is juncture, Ville ~houted for help and asked his fonner
wife Shirley to bring Danilo to the hospital. 19

Marilou, who lives in the hoµse of the Ville family, confirmed Ville's version.
According to Marilou~ Ville, seemed irked when he came back upstairs after buying
a cigarette. She later found out that Ville and Danilo had an argument. Vv'hen she·
heard a commotion downstairs, she went down and there she saw Danilo holding
a knife or an object and pointed it at Ville. Marilou tried to pacify Ville and Danilq
but she fell from the stairs. Suddenly, she heard a gunshot and thereafter saw
Danilo's bioodied body on the ground. 20

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In a Decision21 dated March 20, 2017, the RTC found Ville guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Parricide. The RTC held that Ville's claim of self-defense was
unavailing due to the abs~nce of unlawf-t1l aggression on the pa.rt of the victim.
Further, the trial court found that Ville's act of fleeing from the crime scene and
hiding the sumpak after the incident negated his claim of self-defense. 22

The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding accused DIONISIO VILLE y SANTOS guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. He is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Danilo Ville the
amount[s] of PhP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity; PhP 75 ,000.00 as moral damages;
and PhP 25,000.00 as temperate damages. He is f-tirthcr ordered to pay 6%
interest p~r annum from the finality of thii; case until full payment.

SO ORDERED. 23

16 Id.
17 Id.
JR Id.
19 TSN, August 19, 2014, pp. 8-9. See also records, p. 68.
20 TSN, September 29, 2014, pp. 7-16.
21 CA rollo, pp. 40-44.
22
Id. at 43-44.
2J Id. at 44.

(149)URES - more -

lrvt-.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 252457

Aggrieved by the RTC's Decision, Ville appealed24 before the CA based on

the following sole assignment of error;

I.

THE TRIAL COURT ORAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-

APPELLANT FOR PARRICIDE DESPITE THE EXISTENCE AND PROOF
OF THE JUSTIFYfNG CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF-DEFENSE,25

Riding of the Court of Appeals:

ln its assailed Decision,26 the CA. affirmed the RTC's judgment convicting
Ville of Parricide. It held that the eviq.ence for the defense did not support the
theory of self-defense there being no showing of unlawftil aggression on the part
of the victim. The CA explained that aiming a gun at Ville, without more, is not
sufficient to prove unlawful aggression. There must be some external acts showing
the commencement of actual and material aggression.27 The CA further ruled that
through Nina's testimony, the prosecution successfolly established that Ville killed
Danilo. Ville's act of bringing out the sumpak, holding on to it and waiting for
Danilo to charge upon him negates his claim that Danilo's death was unintentional.

The/a/lo of the appellate court's Decisjon reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the insta.nt appeal is DENIED. The

assai~ed 20 March 2017 Decision of the n,guig City Regional Trial Court, Branch
69 in Crim. Case No. 153212 is AfFlRMED.

SO ORDERED.'.!8

Undaunted, Ville filed a Notice of Appeal29 before this Court.

Issue

The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding Ville guilty
of Parricide and in not considering his plea, of self-defense.

Our Ruling

The appeal is devojd of merit.

Ville failed to prove that he acted

in self-defense.

;,, Recorc!s, p. 21 l .
25
CA rollo, p. 28.
2
" Rollo, pp. 3- I 0.
27
ld. at 7.
is Id. at 9.
29 Id. at 11-13

(149)URES - more -
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 252457

An accused is presumed innocent; thus, it is incumbent upon the

prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the crime charged rather than for
the accused to prove his innocence. However, a person invokjng self-defense in
effect admits to having performed the criminal act but claims no liability
therefor, because the actual and imminent danger to his or her life justified
his/her infliction of harm against an aggressor.30 This dispenses with the
prosecution's burden to prove that the accused performed the criminal act; what
remains to be established is whether the accused was justified in inflicting the
harm. 31 This the accused must prove with clear and convincing evidence. 32

To successfidly invoke self-defense, an accused must prove the following:

( 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 resorting to self-defonse. 33

Unlawful aggression is the indi~pensable element of self-defense, for if no

unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is
unavailing as there is nothing to repel. The unlawful aggression of the victim
must put the life and personal safety of the person defending hi1rn~elf in actual
peril. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude does not constitute unlawful
aggression.34

In the instant case, Ville's defense centers on his claim that it was Danilo
who initiated the attack by aiming a sumpak at him. In essence, Ville asserts that
the unlawful aggression originated from Danilo.

Contrary to Ville's story, however, both the RTC and the CA found that
ViJle was not exposed to any real or imminent danger when Danilo allegedly
attacked him. It is worthy to point out that Vi.He's version of the incident is
completely contradicted by the testimony of Nina, who happened to be his own
daughter. Nina testified that Ville and Danilo were engaged in a fight when Ville
suddenly fired at Danilo, causing the latter to fall on the ground. Nina
maintained that Danilo was not armed when he attacked Ville and that it was
the latter who brought the sumpak into the scene as what he is accustomed to
do whenever he is eng8;ged in a fight. 35 The testimony of Nina is entitled to full
faith and credit because she was not shown to have been impelled by any ill
motive to testify falsely against her own father.

The question of whether Ville acted in self-defense is essentially a question

of fact. It is well-established that the trial court' s findings on the credibility of
witnesses is entitled to respect because it has the opportunity to observe the
witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand and, therefore, is in

30 People v. Ca!iao, 836 Phil. 966, 974(2018), citing People 1•. 11.facaraig, 810 Phil. 93 l (20 l 7).
31
Id., citing Velasquez v. People, 807 Phil. 438 (201 7).
32
Id., citing People v. Mediado, 656 Phil. 377, 382 (201 i).
33 Velasquez v. People, supra at 450.
34 People v. Ramos, 715 Phil. 193, 204-205(2013).
35
TSN,March8, 2016, pp. ll-1 3.

(149)URES - more -

l,vf~
Resolution 6 G.R. No . 252457

the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies and to discern whether the
witne$ses are telling the truth. 36 This being so and in the absence of a showing
that the CA and the RTC failed to appreciate facts or circumstances of such
weight and substance that would have merited Ville's acquittal, this Court :finds
no compelling reason to disturb the ruling of the CA that Ville did not act in
self-defense.

l\!loreover, this Court has observ~d Ville's tendency to invoke mixed

defenses. While he admitted the commission of the crime in order to preserve
his own life, he maintained that Danil9' s death was an accident and that he had
no intention to kill his son. 37 This ren(iers his testimony dubious.

Accident presupposes lack of intention to kill the victim, while self-

defense presumes voluntariness, induced only by necessity. 38 Indeed, if there is
truth to either of his claim, his natural course of action was to assist the victim,
or at the very l~ast, report the incident to the authorities. On the contrary, Nina
testified that after the incident, Ville hid the sumpak in a canal and fled. This
was strengthened by the testimony of Shirley that she shouted for help and was
the one who brought Danilo to the hospital, together with the latter's siblings
and cousins, contrary to Ville's claim that he called Shirley and asked her to
bring the victim to the hospital.39 Certainly, the justify ing circumstance of self-
defense or the exempting circumstance of accident cam1ot be appreciated
considering Ville' s flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the
°
authorities of the incident. 4 Furthennore, Ville's failure to surrender the
weapon used to kill Danilo to the authorities is inconsistent with a clean
conscience and, instead, indicates his culpabiiity of the crime charged. 41

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of Parricide is
committed when: (1) a person is k.ill~d; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused;
and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendants or other descendants, or the
legitimate spouse of the accused. 42 Undoubtedly, all elements are present in this
case.

In fine, We hold that the prosecµtion has sufficiently established that Ville
killed his son, Danilo. That Danilo is the son of Ville was sufficiently proven by
the prosecution through the victim's Certificate of Live Birth. 43

36 People v. Caliao, supra note 30 at 975.

H Records, p. 68.
JR People v. Carlos, 11 5 Phil. 704, 706 ( I 962).
39
Records, p. 9.
40
See People v. Abrazaldo, 445 Phil. 109, 122 (2003).
41 Id.
42 People v. Dacanay, 798 Phil. 132, 146(2016).
43
Records, p. 177.

(149)URES - more -
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 252457

Penalty:

All told, We affirm Ville' s conv1ct1011 for Parricide. The penalty

for P an-icide i~ reclusion perpetl-1,a to death. 44 There being no aggravating o r
mitigating circumstance proven, both the trial court and the CA conectly
sentenced Ville to reclusion perpetua.

Pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC,45 the phrase "without eligibility for

pq,role" shall be used to qualify the penaJty of reclusion perpetua only if the
accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been
for Republic Act No. (RA) 9346.46 In this case, Ville was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua there being no aggravating circumstance that would have otherwise
warranted the imposition of the death penalty were it not for RA 9346. Hence,
the phrase "without eligibility for parole" need not be borne in the decision to
qualify Ville's sentence. 47

The monetary awards of 't'75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral

damages and exemplary damages a.re correct and in accord with recent
jurisprudence.48 Temperate damages of P50,000.00, in lieu of actual damages,
is also granted as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered
pecuniaiy loss although the exact amount was not proved. 49 Finally, these
amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this
Resolution until folly paid.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISJVHSSED. The October 10, 2019

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09300 finding
accused-appellant Dionicio Ville y Santos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of Pan-icide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
is AFFIRL"\1:ED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant is further
required to pay temperat0 damages of PS0,000.00 to the heirs of Danilo Ville y
Hona. These amounts shall earn six percent (6~o) inter.est per annum from
finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

The Comi further resolves to NOTE the:

a) MANIFESTATION (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated lVfarch

8, 2021 by the Public Attorney's Offic~~ adopting the brief filed before the Court
of Appeals as accused-appellant's supplemental brief, as the same had
sufficiently refuted a11 arguments raised by the plaintiff-appellee and no new
issues material to the case were discovered;

44 REVISED PENAL COD[, Article 246, as a1rit:r1deri by Rcpubiic Act No. 7659 ( 1993).
45
Guid~lines for the Proper Use of the Phn1se "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties.
46
AN ACT PROHIBITING THC: IMPOSJT1ON Of DEATH PENALTY IN THE IN THE PH!Lf PP!NES.
47 Peoplev. Saltarin, G.R. No. 2237 15, June J , 2019.
48
People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806,848 (2016).
49
People v. Saltarin, supra.

(149)URES - more -
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 252457

b) MANIFESTATION Ai~D MOTION dated May 5, 2021 by the

Office of the Solicitor General, stating that it shall no longer file a supplemental
brief as its brief filed before the Comi of Appeals had adequately discussed
accused-appellant's guilt of the crimes charged; and

c) LETTER dated May 28, 2021 of Cinsp. Edgar N. Morillo, Acting

Superintendent, NBP-South, tv:lu.ntin.l\lpa Cjty confirming the confinement of
accused-appellant Dionisio Ville y Santos on May 25, 2017 in their institution.

SO ORDERED," (lnting and Gaerlan, JJ.: no part due to prior action

in the Court ofApp1;:als; Zalmneda and Lopez, M V, JJ. designated additional
Members respectively per November 15, 2021 Raffle; Dimaampao, J. , on
official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

---

*PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE **Clnsp. EDGAR N. MORILLO (reg)

Special & Appealed Cases Service Acting Superintendent
Depa1tment of Justice New Bilibid Prison-South
PAO-DOJ Agencies Building Bureau of Corrections
NIA Road corner East A venue l 770 M untinlupa C ity
11 04 Diliman, Q uezon C ity
JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)
*OFFICE OF T HE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg) Supreme Court, Manila
134 Amorsolo Street
1229 Legaspi Village PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)
Makati C ity LIBRARY SERV ICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-1-SC]
*DIONlCIO VILLE y SANTOS (reg)
Accused-Appellant OFFICE OF THE CHJEF ATTORNEY (x)
c/o T he Director OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
Bureau of Corrections PHILIPPINE JUDICAL ACADEMY (x)
1770 Munti nlupa C ity Supreme Court, Manila

THE DIRECTOR (reg) COURT OF APPEALS (x)

Bureau of Corrections Ma. O rosa Street
I 770 Muntinlupa C ity Ermita, I 000 Manila
CA-G.R. C R-HC No. 09300
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg)
Regional Tria l Court, Branch 69 *with copy of the Decision dated IO October 2019
Tagu ig C ity **For th is resolution only
(Crim. Case No. 1532 12) Please notify the Court of any change in your address.
GR252457. 12/01 /2021(149)URES

(149)URES