THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
138692
June 16, 2003
-versus-
DANILO DELIMA
(ACQUITTED)
AND OSCAR AREO,
Accused.
OSCAR AREO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CORONA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the decision[1]
dated October 13, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan,
Samar,
Branch 29, in Criminal Case No. 4426, finding herein appellant, Oscar
Areo,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for killing
Roberto
Pilapil.
The record shows that,
on September 3, 1997, Provincial Prosecutor Juan C. Latorre, Jr. filed
in the Regional Trial Court of Samar an Information[2]
charging Oscar Areo and his co-accused, Danilo Delima, with murder,
allegedly
committed as follows:
That on or
about the 8th day of August, 1997, at nighttime which was purposely
sought,
at Barangay Bachao, Municipality of Daram, Province of Samar,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one
another, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation,
and with abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault, hold and hack one Roberto Pilapil with
the use of a bolo (sundang) with which the said accused had
conveniently
provided themselves for the purpose, thereby hitting and inflicting
upon
said Roberto Pilapil "multiple hacking wounds" in the different parts
of
his body, which wounds directly caused the death of Roberto Pilapil.chanrobles virtual law library
Contrary to law.
Arraigned on September
25, 1997, appellant, Oscar Areo, and his co-accused, Danilo Delima,
pleaded
"not guilty" to the charge.[3]
The prosecution presented
five witnesses, namely: Pedro Papiona,[4]
an alleged eyewitness to the incident; Dra. Lucia L. Astorga,[5]
Municipal Health Officer of Daram, Samar; SPO4 Juanito Batayen of
Daram,
Samar; Saludada Pilapil[6]
and Vicenta Pilapil,[7]
mother and wife of the victim, respectively.cralaw:red
The prosecution’s evidence
established the following:
On August 8, 1997, at
around 6:00 p.m., the victim, Roberto Pilapil, together with his eight
children, was inside their house in Barangay Bachao, Daram, Samar,
watching
over his wife, Vicenta Pilapil, who was about to give birth.
Appellant
Oscar Areo and his co-accused, Danilo Delima, arrived to ask Roberto if
they could have a drinking session inside his house. Roberto agreed, so
they drank beer and rhum. During the drinking spree, Oscar reminded
Roberto
about the parcel of land in Sitio Naparikan which was being occupied by
his (Roberto’s) father. Oscar insisted that they (Areos) owned
the
same, claiming that his mother had previously bought it. Roberto
replied
that his father owned the land and that he knew nothing about the
transaction
being referred to by Oscar.chanrobles virtual law library
At around 11:00 p.m.,
Roberto’s mother, Saludada Pilapil, arrived and advised them to stop
drinking.
Consequently, Danilo and Oscar left and proceeded to the latter’s
house.
A few minutes later, Danilo returned to fetch Roberto who was then
already
sleeping. Saludada advised her son not to leave but Roberto went
with Danilo just the same.cralaw:red
On reaching Oscar’s
house, Roberto was suddenly hog-tied by Danilo. Thereupon, Oscar pulled
out a bolo and started hacking Roberto while Danilo held both hands of
the victim. At that instance, Saludada, who followed her son,
shouted
for help. Upon hearing the cries of Saludada, Pedro Papiona came out of
his son’s house. Oscar and Danilo ran away on seeing him.cralaw:red
On the other hand, the
defense presented six witnesses: the appellant himself;[8]
his co-accused Danilo Delima;[9]
Manuel Cañete,[10]
a friend of Oscar and Danilo; Julita Leona Areo,[11]
wife of the appellant; Estelita Delima[12]
and Dorina Rosales Delima,[13]
wife and mother of Danilo, respectively.cralaw:red
According to the defense
witnesses, at about 7:00 p.m. on August 8, 1997, the appellant and his
kumpadre, Manuel Cañete, went to the house of Ronilo Lanzarete
to
watch a betamax movie. They drank liquor while watching the
movie.
Accused Danilo Delima also went to the house of Ronilo Lanzarete and
joined
Oscar and Manuel in the drinking session. The movie ended at past 9:00
p.m. Thereafter, Oscar went home and ate supper with his wife and
children before retiring to bed. While asleep, Oscar was roused
by
a loud shout coming from outside urging him to come down. Oscar
looked
out the window and found that it was the victim, Roberto Pilapil.
Roberto
continued shouting, warning Oscar that if he did not come down, Roberto
would go after him inside the house. While Roberto was opening the door
of the kitchen, Oscar quickly got hold of the bamboo pole from their
window
and struck Roberto’s hand that was holding a bolo. When the bolo fell,
Oscar picked it up and hacked Roberto several times for fear that
Roberto
was still poised to attack him. After Roberto fell to the ground, he
pleaded
for mercy but appellant ignored his plea. Instead Oscar proceeded
immediately
to his father’s house with his family for fear of reprisal from
Roberto’s
relatives.cralaw:red
At around 6:30 a.m.
the following day, Oscar was fetched for questioning by a barangay
tanod
from his father’s house. Together they went to the barangay hall,
bringing the bolo that he used in hacking the victim. There he met
Danilo.chanrobles virtual law library
Oscar further testified
that Roberto challenged him to a fight because the latter was harboring
a grudge against him. He (Oscar) admitted cutting 15 minonga trees from
the land, formerly owned by a certain Cayang, that was later on sold to
Roberto’s mother, Saludada Pilapil.cralaw:red
Appellant’s co-accused,
Danilo Delima, professed innocence of the crime. Danilo testified in
court
that, on August 8, 1997, he was in the mountain making charcoal. He
went
home at around 5:00 p.m. After eating supper, he and his family
went
to the house of Ronilo Lanzarete to watch a betamax movie. Danilo drank
liquor with the appellant and Manuel Cañete until the movie was
finished at about 9:00 p.m. He and his family then went home to
sleep.
As far as he was concerned, nothing unusual happened that whole evening.cralaw:red
The following day, Danilo
learned that Roberto was killed. He was later arrested as
one
of the suspects in the killing.cralaw:red
The testimonies of the
appellant and his co-accused, Danilo Delima, were corroborated by
Manuel
Cañete, Dorina Rosales Delima and Julita Leona Areo.cralaw:red
Julita Leona Areo, wife
of the appellant, testified that, at around 11:30 p.m. on August 8,
1997,
she was awakened by Roberto who was challenging her husband to a
fight.
She restrained her husband and told him not to go down. But when
Roberto cut the rope which served as a door lock and he was about to
enter
their house, she released her husband who then struck Roberto in the
hand
that was holding a bolo. When the bolo fell, appellant picked it up and
hacked Roberto.chanrobles virtual law library
On October 13, 1998,
the trial court rendered a decision finding appellant Oscar Areo guilty
of murder and acquitting Danilo Delima for insufficiency of evidence.
The
judgment read:
WHEREFORE,
the court finds the accused Oscar Areo guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of
the crime of murder as charged in the information and for this offense
there being no aggravating circumstance proved by the prosecution he is
hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of
Roberto
Pilapil, represented by Mrs. Vicenta Pilapil, in the amount of Fifty
Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency
and to pay one-half of the costs.
The accused Oscar
Areo
has been detained since August 9, 1977.
For insufficiency
of
evidence, the accused Danilo Delima is hereby acquitted with costs de
oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this appeal.chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant raises the
following assignments of error:
I
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF MURDER BASED ON THE VERY
INCREDIBLE
TESTIMONIES OF THE ALLEGED PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN NOT BELIEVING THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS CORROBORATED
BY HIS WITNESSES.
III
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
BY NOT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE ACCUSED DURING THE
TRIAL
IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
SELF-DEFENSE
ATTENDED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE ACT COMPLAINED OF.
To escape criminal liability,
appellant invokes the justifying circumstance of self-defense. He
admits
hacking Roberto but vigorously insists that he did so to defend himself
and his family.cralaw:red
Appellant further contends
that it was Roberto who started the aggression by acting in a manner
that
was threatening and dangerous to him and his family. When
appellant
saw that Roberto was already opening the door of their kitchen and
sensing
that Roberto had a bolo, Oscar took the bamboo pole from the window and
struck Roberto’s hand holding the bolo. When the bolo fell, Oscar
picked
it up and, afraid that Roberto was still going to attack him, he hacked
Roberto several times. Oscar’s declaration was corroborated by
his
wife who was present at the scene of the crime.chanrobles virtual law library
Despite this corroboration,
however, we are not convinced by appellant’s theory of self-defense.cralaw:red
Jurisprudence holds
that, when the accused admits committing the crime but invokes
self-defense
to escape criminal liability, the burden of proof shifts to him.
It necessarily follows that he must now rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even
if
the latter’s evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the
accused
has admitted the killing.[14]
He must then prove the following elements of self-defense: unlawful
aggression
on the part of the victim; reasonable necessity of the means employed
to
prevent or repel it and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the
one resorting to self-defense.[15]
Of these requisites, the most indispensable is unlawful aggression on
the
part of the victim. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is
nothing to prevent or repel. And for unlawful aggression to be
appreciated,
there must be a strong and positive act of real aggression, not merely
a threat or an intimidating stance. Thus, the accused who claims
self-defense must positively establish that there was an actual, sudden
and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, by the victim.[16]
Upon review of the evidence
on record, we find that the appellant has failed to discharge this
burden.
There was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim to speak
of.
Contrary to the claim of the defense, the prosecution established
through
its eyewitness that the victim was lured to the appellant’s house and
there
hacked by the appellant. Appellant’s effort to buttress his
theory
of self-defense can only be described as desperate. The trial
court
in its decision found that unlawful aggression was not proven, thus:
Defendant Oscar Areo’s
claim that he acted in self-defense is unfounded. In order that
this
defense may prosper, it is necessary that such plea be established by a
clear and convincing evidence. He did not receive even a scratch
or bruise in the alleged attack which the deceased Roberto Pilapil,
armed
with a bolo, made upon him. There can be no self-defense unless
there
was unlawful aggression. Such unlawful aggression was not found
in
this case.chanrobles virtual law library
To successfully invoke
self-defense, appellant must prove, by satisfactory evidence, the
concurrence
of all the elements of self-defense, the most important of which is
unlawful
aggression by the victim. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no
self-defense, complete or incomplete, and conviction of appellant must
follow.[17]
Another factor that
militates against the appellant’s claim of self-defense is the physical
evidence on record, that is, the number of wounds inflicted on the
victim.
As testified to by Dr. Lucia Astorga, the attending physician, the
victim
suffered eight wounds, most of them fatal. It is an oft-repeated rule
that
the presence of many wounds on the victim negates self-defense; it in
fact
indicates a determined effort to kill him. Even assuming for the
sake of argument that it was the deceased who initiated the attack and
the accused merely defended himself, clearly there was no need for him
to stab the victim several times if the purpose was simply to disable
the
victim or make him desist from his unlawful assault.[18]
One thing more is the
matter of flight. Appellant admitted that, immediately after the
incident,
he fled from the crime scene. Flight, in jurisprudence, is a
strong
indication of guilt, although the opposite does not necessarily imply
innocence
either.[19]
Appellant’s alleged fear of retaliation from the victim’s relatives was
a figment of his imagination. He failed to report the incident
immediately
to the barangay chairman and police authorities, negating his claim of
self-defense. In sum, appellant failed to present clear and
convincing
evidence to prove self-defense.chanrobles virtual law library
Furthermore, what appellant
tries to depict is that it was the accused who was the unlawful
aggressor.
We do not think so. It would have been totally against human
nature
for the victim to look for trouble at a time when he was with his
family,
awaiting the birth of his new baby. Under the circumstances, we cannot
believe appellant that it was the victim who went to his house to
commit
violence there.cralaw:red
For all the foregoing
reasons, we accept the testimony of Roberto’s mother that her son was
lured
to the appellant’s house and hog-tied before he was hacked to
death.
This constituted treachery which is committed when two conditions
concur,
namely, that the means, method and form of execution employed give the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and
that
such means, method and form of execution are deliberately and
consciously
adopted by the accused without danger to his person.[20]
These two conditions were evidently present in the instant case.cralaw:red
We, therefore, find
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with
the qualifying circumstance of treachery. There being no
mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed the
penalty
of reclusion perpetua on the appellant under Article 63 of the Revised
Penal Code.cralaw:red
The record shows that
the trial court failed to award moral damages. The victim’s
widow testified that the death of her husband caused her sorrow and
suffering,
and left her eight children to support. Moral damages, which
include
physical suffering and mental anguish, may be recovered in criminal
offenses
resulting in the victim’s death. Therefore, the Court
awards
the amount of P50,000 as moral damages.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the appealed
decision dated October 13, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court of
Catbalogan,
Samar, Branch 29 in Criminal Case No. 4426 finding Oscar Areo guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer
the
penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION
that appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Roberto Pilapil the
amount
of P50,000 as moral damages, in addition to the civil indemnity
of
P50,000. Costs against appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Auxencio C. Dacuycuy; Rollo, pp. 24-36.
[2]
Rollo, p. 10.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Rollo, p. 18.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
TSN, October 10, 1997.
[5]
TSN, November 13, 1997.
[6]
TSN, December 3, 1997.
[7]TSN,
December 22, 1997.
[8]
TSN, May 18, 1998.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
TSN, January 9 and 28, 1998.
[10]
TSN, February 26, 1998.
[11]
TSN, July 8, 1998.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
TSN, February 26, 1998.
[13]
TSN, March 25, 1998.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
People vs. Mendoza, 327 SCRA 695, 705 [2000].
[15]
Salcedo vs. People, 347 SCRA 499, 507 [2000].
[16]
Macalino, Jr. vs. People, 340 SCRA 11, 23 [2000].
[17]
People vs. Dano, 339 SCRA 515, 531 [2000].chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
People vs. Deopante, 263 SCRA 691, 707 [1996].
[19]
People vs. Acuno, 313 SCRA 667, 682 [1999].chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
People vs. Enriquez, 357 SCRA 269, 287 [2001]. |