"Be thou my breastplate, my sword for the fight;
Be thou my whole armour, be thou my true might;
Be thou my soul's shelter, be thou my strong tower;
O raise thou me heavenward, great Power of my power."
- John Rutter
 |
| Sir Galahad and the Holy Grail |
I wonder how my friends fared in the first day of the bar exam last Sunday. I dunno I've been thinking. I'm getting close to next year's bar I've given my self the 1 year countdown starting last Sunday. Meaning this is it.. I gotta be starting being more serious about this. They say to be able to pass it you have to respect it. That means you really have to prepare for it, make the law run through your veins. And that entails reading, studying, reviewing, and when you're done with it, you do it again.. and again till it becomes a part of you.
I feel like the knight Galahad in search for the Holy Grail of wisdom. That before all these starts for me when I take it.. I want to be anxious about it. I need to, so that I'd prepare for it. It's like I'm looking at the knight crusaders in the thickness of battle and I can't do anything but watch. I hold my sword and pulled it out but anxiety crept in I know I'm unprepared. I had no choice but to slide it back to the scabbard. You see them getting slaughtered in the battlefield and so you doubt if the strength of your army will hold, but you have no choice but to move forward once the horn sounds. I gotta be prepared.
Again I am speaking in figurative sense..
I guess that's the reason why there are prayers for battles, that not only started in the Medieval knights of old and the romantic times but was even more present during the Biblical times. David. Joshua, King Jehoshaphat all fought numerous battles under God's protection. Gideon was told by God to cut down the size of his army in order to win the war. Stories of war and battle in the Middle Ages where they've invoked the guidance and protection of a higher power. Sir Galahad and the Holy Grail is one pure example. Those litany, adoration, supplications, mostly followed by a psalm, or hymn, or a canticle weren't there for nothing. They were living in perilous times. Outbreaks of war here and there. They've probably thought life is short and fleeting. And so they've learned to rely on divine power. In the words of John Rutter he wrote "Great Power of my power". For they know that man is finite. And they cannot rely on themselves alone. And so they've uttered prayers for protection, for guidance, for victory.
"Almighty God, in my hour of need be with me. Let me never forget my sacred and holy vows unto Thee. That I shall not be prey unto demons and devils, and all the dark things of this world. Arm me with thy armor of righteousness, Give me the sword of truth, that I shall confound mine enemies…and be unto Thee… a true knight." - Outcast (2014)This is the reason why we have 'invocations' in our programs. The principle there is that at the start of whatever we do, we invoke the guidance and protection of that higher power for we know our human toils are meaningless and futile without such acknowledgement.
Before I take the bar next year.. as early as now.. I acknowledge Thee Lord.
Now we go to the case. I think this case could be considered as an answer to Justice Sandoval's 1st Question in the mid term exam. The court said in its ruling "had the appellant merely wanted to protect himself from what he perceived as an unlawful aggression of Norman, he could have just disabled Norman." In Justice Sandoval's question there was Unlawful Aggression. That element was present by the mere fact that 'Y' sustained an injury in his left arm. But was there a Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed? 'Y' killed 'X' in the process of him defending himself. They wrestled for the knife and when 'Y' had it in his possession he stabbed 'X'. Then my answer is wrong, there was no Reasonable Necessity there when he could have just disabled him. Well the question wasn't clear if he repeatedly stabbed him or not, but one single stab could still be a fatal blow... in either case self defense cannot be invoked..
But the Supreme Court said in this ruling "WITHOUT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION, SELF-DEFENSE WILL NOT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON AND THIS JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE APPRECIATED EVEN IF THE OTHER ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT"... (or absent?)
You be the judge...
Facts of the case states that:
On or about October 25, 1999 at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening at Velasquez Road, Brgy. Sta. Rita, Batangas City, Honorato Beltran, Jr., armed with a bolo, which is a deadly weapon, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and hacked suddenly without a warning Norman Concepcion (22 yrs old) who was unarmed and completely defenseless, thereby hitting him on the different parts of his body, which directly caused the victim's death. Arraigned, accused pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charge therein. And so trial on the merits ensued.
THE PROSECUTION:
The prosecution established its case through the corroborated testimonies of its several credible witnesses summarizing that appellant-accused approached Norman, who was going home from work as an assistant to the electrician at First Gas Company and, without a warning, hacked him with a bolo. Norman tried to avoid the blow by moving backwards and shielding his face with his left arm. However, Norman's left hand was hit and wounded by the bolo. When Norman turned around and ran, appellant hacked him at the back causing him to fall down on a grassy area. Appellant repeatedly hacked Norman with a bolo.
The investigating officer of the instant case. when he received the information regarding the hacking incident rushed to the crime scene. Inquiring from the people present the identity of the dead person and of the killer. Establishing a lead they proceeded to the appellant's house but the latter was not there. The next day a certain Tomas Dimacuha surrendered the appellant. Later, the brother of appellant, Sherman Beltran, brought before him the bolo, about three palms in length, used by appellant in hacking the victim to death.
Medico-Legal conducted the post mortem examination on the cadaver of Norman declared that, aside from the fact that Norman's body was almost decapitated, the latter suffered 7 stab wounds and his cause of death was "massive blood loss secondary to multiple hacking wound."
So what was the motive of the murder?..
It was testified that appellant-accused had a motive to kill since he and Norman had a previous altercation which, however, was subsequently settled in their barangay office.
I wonder what they've quarreled about?
THE DEFENSE
On the other hand, the defense argued its case by presenting the testimony of the appellant himself and a certain Dr. Luisito Briones.
Appellant admitted that he hacked Norman with a bolo but insisted that he did the same in self-defense.
He narrated that on 25 October 1999, at about 10:00 in the evening, he and his mother were resting inside their house when suddenly, he heard Norman shouting and insulting him outside their house and challenging him to a fight. When he came out of the house, he noticed that Norman was accompanied by several unidentified persons. Thereafter, he tried to pacify Norman but the latter slapped the back of his head and pulled out an ice pick from his pocket. He retreated and looked for something to defend himself. He found a bolo near a tamarind tree in front of their house and took the same. When Norman was about to enter appellant's house, the latter hacked him with the bolo. Norman tried to avoid the blow but the same hit his left arm. Appellant lost grip of the bolo and the same fell on the ground. While appellant was reaching for the bolo, Norman grabbed his head and tried to stab him with the ice-pick. Appellant, however, eluded the counter-attack but he sustained a minor wound on the forehead. Upon gaining control of the scuffle, appellant took the bolo and hacked Norman four consecutive times, most of them landed on the head. When appellant noticed that Norman was no longer moving, he fled therein and went to his brother, Sherman Beltran, in Bauan, Batangas, where he stayed that same night and hid therein the bolo. The next day, he went to his sister's house in Lipa City. Later that day, he went to the Granja Hospital, also in Lipa City, for treatment of his wound on the forehead.
Dr. Luisito D. Briones testified that he treated appellant on the morning of 26 October 1999 at Granja Hospital in Lipa City for a lacerated wound on the forehead. He also claimed that the wound was possibly caused by a knife and that it was already on the healing stage. He also issued a medical certificate attesting to the same.
To tell you frankly, the accused may have such an imagination that runs wild for an alibi or he may have been telling the truth in some way.. but the thing is... invoking the defense of self defense (I hope I'm not sounding redundant) the requisites of that justifying circumstance provision is still actually standing against him and his facts..
RTC DECISION - GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
RTC rendered its Decision1 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder sentencing him to reclusion perpetua together with all the accessory penalties inherent therewith and to pay the costs, indemnification, and damages.
Aggrieved, appellant filed a notice of appeal assailing the Decision of the RTC and filing his Appellant's Brief with the next higher court (CA).
But the question is, would the CA have jurisdiction over the appealed case since the penalty meted by the lower court was reclusion perpetua of which case understandably climbs up straight to the SC for automatic review..
But invoking the ruling in the case of People v. Mateo, and since the issue is a question of fact a resolution was issued transferring the instant case to the Court of Appeals for disposition.
CA AFFIRMED RTC RULING:
The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with modifications the assailed RTC Decision. Aside from reducing the amount of actual damages awarded by the RTC, it also ordered appellant to pay the heirs of Norman an amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
ISSUE:
Did the accused-appellant acted in self defense?
Assuming that accused-appellant is not entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Did the trial court erred in not considering in his favor the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party which immediately preceded the act and voluntary surrender?
The contention is without merit.
Appellant contended that he merely acted in self-defense when he hacked Norman to death.
Article 11, paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal Code provides for the elements and/or requisites in order that a plea of self-defense may be validly considered in absolving a person from criminal liability, viz:
ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal liability:
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression;As an element of self-defense, unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril. It is an act positively strong showing the intent of the aggressor and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. It is also described as a sudden and unprovoked attack of immediate and imminent kind to the life, safety or rights of the person attacked.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent peril the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon. In order to constitute unlawful aggression, the person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on his life and limb; and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.
In the instant case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Norman that justified the act of appellant in hacking him to death. There was no actual or imminent danger on the life of appellant when he came face to face with Norman. As narrated by witnesses he was just walking on the road and was not provoking appellant into a fight. It was the appellant who approached and suddenly hacked Norman repeatedly even when the latter was already fallen on the ground. In short, appellant was the unlawful aggressor.
Here we go... the Supreme Court is now even stating (and may I say affirming) what I've concluded earlier.. court said..
Even if this Court were to adopt the version of facts of appellant, the result or conclusion would be the same.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:
Appellant alleged that he was resting inside his house when he heard Norman shouting invectives against him and challenging him to a fight. When he went outside the house to pacify Norman, the latter slapped the back of his head and brought out an ice-pick. Appellant retreated and when Norman tried to follow him inside the house, he took a bolo and repeatedly hacked Norman. The foregoing circumstances does not justify the act of appellant in hacking Norman. Obviously, mere shouting of invectives and challenging one to a fight does not put one's life in actual or imminent danger. In the same vein, mere slapping of one's head does not place a person's life in serious danger such that it compels him to use a bolo and hack the offender.
As regards the brandishing of an ice-pick, appellant had several less harmful means of avoiding the same as he was not cornered or trapped. He could have run inside his house and locked the door, or, called the neighbors or authorities for help. Unfortunately, appellant did not avail himself of any of those options and instead chose to hack Norman. Quite conspicuously, no convincing evidence was presented to show that Norman was, indeed, armed with an ice-pick at the time of the incident. In fact, no ice-pick was found in the crime scene nor in the body of Norman. There was also no proof adduced showing that Norman attempted to stab appellant or tried to barge into the latter's house.37
The fact that appellant sustained an injury on his head, allegedly caused by Norman's ice-pick, does not signify that he was a victim of unlawful aggression or that he acted in self-defense. The physician who treated appellant testified that the latter was diagnosed on 26 October 1999, the day after the hacking incident; that appellant was discharged on the same day he was treated in the hospital since he was only an out-patient; and that at the time he examined the head injury of appellant, it was already on its healing stage. It is clear from the foregoing that appellant's head injury was not serious or severe. The cause of the same is likewise doubtful. Thus, the superficiality of the injury sustained by appellant is no indication that his life and limb were in actual peril.
In stark contrast, Norman was almost decapitated and sustained fatal injuries on the head and neck. All in all, Norman sustained seven fatal wounds, most of them located at the head and neck. Based on the foregoing, it is difficult to believe that Norman was the unlawful aggressor. The gravity, location, and number of wounds sustained by Norman are eloquent physical evidence showing a determined effort on the part of appellant to kill Norman, and not just to defend himself.
Time and again, we held that unlawful aggression is a sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense. It is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-defense. WITHOUT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION, SELF-DEFENSE WILL NOT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON AND THIS JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE APPRECIATED EVEN IF THE OTHER ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT.To our mind, unlawful aggression is clearly absent in the case at bar.
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED:
The second element of self-defense requires that the means employed by the person defending himself must be reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression of the victim. The reasonableness of the means employed may take into account the weapons, the physical condition of the parties and other circumstances showing that there is a rational equivalence between the means of attack and the defense.
The act of appellant in repeatedly hacking Norman on his head and neck was not a reasonable and necessary means of repelling the aggression allegedly initiated by the latter. As stated earlier, no convincing evidence was presented to show that Norman was armed with an ice-pick at the time of the incident. In fact, no ice-pick was found in the crime scene or in the body of the victim. There was also no proof showing that Norman attempted to stab appellant or tried to barge into the latter's house. Granting arguendo that Norman was armed with an ice-pick, the repeated hackings were not necessary since he can overpower or disable Norman by a single blow on non-vital portion/s of his body.
Again, as correctly observed by the OSG, had the appellant merely wanted to protect himself from what he perceived as an unlawful aggression of Norman, he could have just disabled Norman. When Norman fell on the ground, appellant should have ceased hacking the former since the alleged aggression or danger no longer exists. By appellant's own testimony, however, he hacked Norman with his bolo even when the latter was already lying on the ground. It appears, therefore, that the means used by appellant, which were simultaneous and repeated hackings, were adopted by him not only to repel the aggression of Norman but to ensure the latter's death. In sum, such act failed to pass the test of reasonableness of the means employed in preventing or repelling an unlawful aggression.
Like an alibi, self-defense is inherently weak for it is easy to fabricate. Thus, this Court had consistently ruled that where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense. As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements of self-defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. In the instant case, appellant failed to discharge such burden with clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, his plea of lawful self-defense must fall.
The decision of the lower courts were AFFIRMED. Honorato Beltran goes to jail for good.
