PEOPLE vs. DUMADAG (2011) (sweetheart defense)

One of my loftiest ambitions when I was a child was to throw an egg at an electric fan.

(alright, let me do a cross)

Atty. Clavecilla: "Ginoong Dumadag sinabi mo na ayaw mong labagin ang sinumpaan mo sa batas ng tao at sa batas ng diyos.. tama ba ako?"
Dumadag: "Opo tama po"
Atty. Clavecilla: "Ginoong Dumadag.. sinabi mo na may relasyon kayo ng babaing umaakusa sayo?"
Dumadag: "Opo"
Atty. Clavecilla: "Ngayon, dahil kayo ay may relasyon.. masasabi mo ba Ginoong Dumadag na ito ay nababase sa tinatawag nating pagmamahal?"
Dumadag: "Opo attorney"
Atty. Clavecilla: "Ang ibig mo bang sabihin na ang pagmamahal na ito ay maituturing na.. pagibig?"
Dumadag: "Opo"
Atty. Clavecilla: "At ang iyo bang pagibig sa babaing ito ay WAGAS, DALISAY at MATATAG??" (nak ng.. LOL)
Defense Counsel: "Objection your honor, immaterial.."  (Hahahahaha!)
Judge: Atty. Clavecilla.. is there really a need to sound condescending?
Atty. Clavecilla: Your honor I am just trying to determine the intensity of the alleged love relationship in connection with the motive of the crime
Judge: Well in that case counsel, objection overruled .. you may proceed. 
Atty. Clavecilla: Thank you your honor...  Ginoong Dumadag.. iyo bang masasabe na Intensity 5 kayo nung isinagawa mo ang krimen? (HAHAHAHA) 

I think I learned something from the House Deputy Speaker at the latest Congressional Inquiry.. how to appear and sound condescending in criminal litigation... I'll keep that in mind and use it someday...  

(Alright let's get to a real case.. this is a rape case)

The Criminal Case of Rape.. here's the facts.

Information was filed with the Manila RTC against Carlo DUMADAG of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under Article 335  of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11, of Republic Act No. 7659.

(So here's what happened..)

Above-named accused, armed with a knife, with lewd design, by use of force or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of a woman (name withheld) below eighteen (18) years of age, all against her will and consent. During his arraignment appellant, with the assistance of his counsel de officio, entered a negative plea to the charge and so trial ensued.

(Alright, let's get to this quick.. after the direct, cross, redirect and re-cross..)

Version of the Prosecution

That the girl a young barrio lass, 16 years of age at the time she testified declared that in the early morning of  December 25, 1998, she was on her way home after hearing the midnight mass. She was a little bit behind Thelma, Carlos and Clarence, all surnamed Dumadag. All of a sudden, appellant approached her from behind and poked a Batangas knife on her threatening to stab her if she shouts. He pulled her towards the house of Joel Boyet Ursulum (Boyet). Once inside, she was forced to remove her pants and panty because of fear. Appellant also removed his pants and brief and pushed her on a bamboo bed. Pointing the knife at the left portion of her abdomen, appellant ordered her to hold his penis against her vagina. Appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. After appellant was through, they stayed inside the house until 6 in the morning. All this time, appellant continued to hold the knife. Pleading that she be allowed to go home, appellant finally let her go after threatening to kill her if she reports the incident to her parents. The girl decided not to disclose what transpired because of fear. Nevertheless, the girl's uncle, learned from appellant himself that the latter had sexual intercourse with her. Her uncle relayed the information to her father who confronted her about the incident. After confirming the same from they decided to report the matter to the police where she was investigated and her sworn statement taken. Physical examination on the girl indicated that there was laceration on her hymen.

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, appellant does not deny having had sexual intercourse with the girl. Instead, he claimed that it was voluntary and without the use of force since they were lovers. To support his claim that she was his girlfriend, appellant presented Boyet and Nieves Irish Oandasan (Nieves Irish) who both corroborated his sweetheart defense.

RTC Ruling

RTC declared appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge lodged against him after finding the girl's testimony to be credible  as it was given in a candid and straightforward manner. It rejected appellants sweetheart defense holding that a sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Consequently he was condemned to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and payment of damages.

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the trial court. The records of this case were transmitted to the Supreme Court. Both parties filed their respective Briefs. Consistent however to the Supreme Court's pronouncement of a decision laid in People v. Mateo (the anti-direct appellate review case) the case was referred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition. 

In his brief, appellant assigned the following errors.

1. The trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of  private complainant that accused poked a knife at the left side of her abdomen after she came out from the church.

2. The trial court erred in not acquitting accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The CA Ruling 

Resolving jointly the foregoing imputations against the trial court, the CA affirmed with modification the appealed judgment of conviction. The CA ruled that there is nothing on record which shows that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied a fact or circumstance of weight and substance which would have affected the case. The CA junked appellants contentions that he and the girl were lovers; that no force or intimidation was employed on the girl; and that there was contradiction as to which of his hands was placed around her neck. The CA further held that the girl's simple account of her ordeal evinces sincerity and truthfulness. 

ISSUE:

Did the lower court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of  private complainant and finding no reasonable doubt on the part of the accused.   

RULING:

The appeal is bereft of merit.

The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.  On the basis of the records, the Court finds the girl candidly and categorically recounted the manner appellant threatened her and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will. She consistently testified on all points raised by the presiding judge.  Therefore the Court, just as the courts below, is convinced of the truth and sincerity in the account of the girl. It bears to stress that AS A RULE, TESTIMONIES OF CHILD VICTIMS OF RAPE ARE GIVEN FULL WEIGHT AND CREDIT, FOR YOUTH AND IMMATURITY ARE BADGES OF TRUTH. 

Neither is it improbable for appellant to employ such criminal design in the presence of his  own family especially when overcome by lust. It is a common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby. Lust is no respecter of time and place.  As established, the girl was silenced by appellants threat of killing her with a knife. Thus, the reason for her failure to shout or cry for help is because she was overcame by fear. It has been held that minors,  could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives. 

The fact that there is no evidence of resistance on the part of the girl DOES NOT CLOUD HER CREDIBILITY. The failure of a victim to physically resist does not negate rape when intimidation is exercised upon her and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapists assault because of fear for life and physical safety. In this case, the girl was dragged by appellant with a knife pointed on her neck and warned not to shout or to reveal the incident to anyone or else she would be killed. That warning was instilled in her mind such that even when appellant was just holding his weapon after the intercourse, she did not attempt to flee. The intimidation made by the appellant are sufficient since it instilled fear in her mind that if she would not submit to his bestial demands, something bad would befall her.

Well-settled is the rule that where the victim is threatened with bodily injury, as when the rapist is armed with a deadly weapon, such as a pistol, knife, ice pick or bolo, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful desires of the rapist. 

There is no question that the girl underwent sexual intercourse as admitted by appellant himself and as shown by the medical findings. However, appellant denies having raped her and instead, claims that he and the girl were lovers and the act of sexual intercourse was a free and voluntary act between them. In short, he interposes the sweetheart theory to exculpate himself from the rape charge filed against him.

Appellants claim that they are lovers is untenable. For one, such claim was not substantiated by the evidence on the record. The only evidence adduced by appellant were his testimony and those of his relatives Boyet and Nieves Irish. According to Boyet, he knows of their relationship because they were conversing and writing each other while Nieves Irish saw them once walking in the street. To the mind of the Court, these are not enough evidence to prove that a romantic relationship existed between both of them. In People v. Napudo where the accused likewise invoked the sweetheart defense, this Court held that:

"The fact alone that two people were seen seated beside each other, conversing during a jeepney ride, without more, cannot give rise to the inference that they were sweethearts. Intimacies such as loving caresses, cuddling, tender smiles, sweet murmurs or any other affectionate gestures that one bestows upon his or her lover would have been seen and are expected to indicate the presence of the relationship."

Other than Dumadag's self-serving assertions and those of his witnesses which were rightly discredited by the trial court, nothing supports appellants claim that he and the girl were indeed lovers. A sweetheart defense, to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of relationship such as notes, gifts, pictures, mementos and the like. Appellant failed to discharge this burden.

Besides, even if it were true that appellant and the girl were sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate rape. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiance and worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. LOVE IS NOT A LICENSE FOR LUST. But what destroyed the veracity of appellants sweetheart defense were the credible declaration of the girl is her categorical denial that he is her boyfriend. 

With the credibility of the girl having been firmly established, the courts below did not err in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape committed through force and intimidation. The sweetheart theory interposed by appellant was correctly rejected for lack of substantial corroboration.

  

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HONORATO BELTRAN

"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

"Murder is one of the instances when man descends to a level lower than that of the beast, for it is non-instinctive killing, a deliberate destruction of a member of the same species for reasons other than survival" - Supreme Court

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?

RULING:

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;
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.

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.

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. 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARASIGAN (1950)

"Wherever You Go, There You Are"

Trick or treat!! I was brisk walkin' in the mall catching time the other day to get somethin' important. A bit in a hurry I needed to get out of there fast to reach an appointment.. and.. guess who I came across with walking the same direction as I was hand held by his mom… about what.. 2 feet tall?  'round  about.. 2 yrs old? He was wearing a mask and a cape, one of the ear was standing and the other was like about to fall LOL... I brisk walked even faster to get passed him to see who the tiny thing was.. it seemed familiar…   so when I got in front of him walkin' I turned and walked backwards for about 3 steps.. boy he gave me that look like “I’m Batman.. and don’t you forget that” with one of the ears falling down LOL kinda look. Believe me.. the cutest thing I ever saw this Halloween.

And check this out. I was at ACE? to figure out how much a bathroom sink faucet set would cost me?  I was actually assisted by no less than Mr. Freddy Krueger :) I walked in right? straight to the shelves where the ACE ladies were smiling all in wonderful Cos-Play I mean.. Halloween  costumes. I walked passed a single row I think I saw somethin'.. a man in red and black stripes sporting a hat and blade claws.. and so I stopped and inched back a little... and he caught me smiling. And he walked over to me "Can I help you sir?" moving closer I noticed he was even wearing red contact lenses.. yeah like Darth Maul's.   "He he Tsk lu-pet ah!". And I saw his reaction, he got all smiles and felt validated.  And of course Freddy K. assisted me from start to end.

Allow me to rest the gavel for a while and write a long narrative. After all, it's semestral break in all schools in the metro including law schools right? Another is it's halloween so why don't we just dance with the horror music and get spooked up with the season.  Thing is, I don't get easily scared. I try hard really, I end up laughing. Just this last semester I'd drive home from school in Manila taking my usual Legarda route to Sta.Mesa, to San Juan to Broadway Centrum, to Gilmore to Balete Drive on to E.Rod. trying to look at the rear view mirror for some nasty white dressed nun or evening lady smiling at me or worse staring at me like 'Valak' right from the backseat of the car but nope.. none.. as in zero. And none o'those any in the movies. 

Actually creepy movies don't easily scare me. I could watch a ton of it the whole night and.. nada. I think the movie that really scared the shit out of me was this one I saw back in the day when I was a kid. This classic 18th century Gothic horror film “The Fall of the House of Usher”. It’s an adaptation lifted from the works of a weird dead poet named Edgar Allan Poe. 

They said he’s a genius. The guy. Well he’s a genius alright, he scared the fuckin’ shit out of me. The guy’s a lunatic I heard, or read. Our parents made sure that we were well-read when we were kids. He writes magnificently but only when he’s intoxicated. Mr. Poe. I mean the guy’s a freakin' alcoholic. He’s got to take wine to make his creative juices come out. Ow but he's not your typical writer mind you. The guy's extreme. He writes about the unusual, the horrific side of life, the morbid, the macabre. Just imagine writing about the slowly turning up coffin bolt screws and the dead Madeleine all white with blood oozing out her eye slowly rising out from the coffin dragging her feet out of the catacombs from underneath the old gaunt house of the Ushers carrying a flail? Terrific. The dude was such a genius I couldn’t sleep for months when I saw that.

You know back in first year law school right after midterm exams when we can put all those books away for a little while and get a break from all those immersions in SCRA cases and codals, right after a drink out and celebrations I’d come home to our old house packed with DVDs I borrowed from that defunct Video City? During nights I’d lock my self in my room with chips and milk and catchup. Remember “The Exorcist”? I’m talkin' about the director’s cut version. This is the scariest version coz Director Friedkin inserted the scene he deleted from the 1973 original when it was premiered. Reason why he deleted it is because the wires are seen in that spider-walk down through the stairs. Come the 90’s, CGI was invented and they digitally remastered hiding the wires and re-released the film. And so it made it more realistically creepier (redundancy intended) and that’s what made it interesting.

And so feeling done with school responsibilities, you wont believe what I just did. I actually borrowed it and set it aside for a late evening watch to test my self if I can handle it. I wanted to face that fear factor once and for all if I really had it. So I locked my self in my room one very late night and watched it in dim lights complete with open windows and drapes swaying. I must admit It was a crazy idea, but it wasn’t crazy at all. Because nothin’ crazy happened. It was like I was just watchin’ a Walt Disney movie. And please note I wasn’t even into chips and beer that night, it was just chips and orange juice. Well I must admit I was a little bit surprised with the spider-crawl scene. But soon afterwards it quickly died off.

I dunno I may be brave watching “The Exorcist” alone because everythin’ was done in the comforts of my home. Question is, what if I’m outside alone in the middle of no where beneath the dark side of the moon or somethin’, I’ve wondered how’d I'd fare. Well guess what? It happened to me. Just when you least expect it would happen to you, it happens. You know those ‘bituka ng manok’ or ‘balete drive’ urban legends and scary unexplained things when you travel at night?

Back in 2007, my friends and I decided to spend lent season in the beaches of Subic. We took the trip, got there, hit the beach but then somethin’ happened. My car overheated and to make it worse we found a crack in the radiator. Of course it’s lent season so where the hell can you tow the car to or get a mechanic right? So guess what, we were stuck in Dungaree Beach looking for a lift from someone for the ladies. Then I talked to the Subic Police, who quickly responded and extended assistance. Then we left the car at the beach and started hunting down a mechanic from every corners of Pampanga. We found one. I gave him the keys and commissioned him to do the job and paid him in full. Saturday we left, Sunday afternoon I was traveling alone back to Subic to get the car and keys from the Subic Police Headquarters.

Evening I took the keys, had couple of laughs and shook hands with the Chief. Around 8:00 p.m. I was driving out of Subic when I got a call from this Chinese businessman friend of mine who I met several months ago, he did the tint for my car few months back and since then we became friends and had intermittent communication about cars and our businesses during those times. We had the same name, same car ending number coding scheme schedule and the same car make-up, he drives a Starex van and one sedan. The guy took that as an auspicious star. Well you know how Chinese are, they're very superstitious.  He had just put up a detailing branch in the downtown of Pampanga and he wanted me to see it, of course he knew I was in Subic so.. we met in the red light district of Pampanga. We parked our cars side by side and had a couple of light beers and some crispy loins and he took care of everything. Thing was, I lost track of time. We ended up around 1 a.m. So I had to excuse my self. I’ve figured I still have to travel back to Manila so you know… the guy was such a gentleman (well most of my friends are perfect gentlemen. I don’t usually keep them if their not) I didn’t know how to get out of there so he gave me directions and took me to this route himself. He said it’s the safest, simplest and shortest route to Manila. It’s the Bataan route.

So we convoyed up to where our roads divide, and stopped in the middle of no where. It was really past midnight, and I can feel it, the chilling air, it was eerie. Maybe it was the air coming from that haunted house somewhere there. I think we passed by it. We jumped off our cars and he gave me last instructions. “This is the start of the route I’m talking about, just turn right and it’ll be all straight from there” “Thanks for everything, see you in Manila” I said. We shook hands and then he said “Chip whatever happens call me, and oh, one last thing.. it’ll be pitched black once you’ve reached Bataan, and it’s just your headlights you can count on… don’t look to your left or right, just look straight ahead”. I looked him straight in the eye to see if he’s bluffing or what but he was dead serious. He must have experienced it himself, whatever it is. He didn’t elaborate on it, he probably just didn’t wanna scare the shit out of me. And I myself never even asked further. It’s sort of a man thing. When it’s just between two men, no further words are needed. I’ve also heard stories myself on my way there with the guys so I thought I knew what he meant.

I started stepping on it pumping up the stereo volume. And I was driving really fast. I can still recall the first song that played. From ‘Love Spit Love’ the soundtrack of Charmed.  I never watched a single episode of Charmed. I thought it was stupid. I watched Roswell. So I felt Roswell. It was really quiet, I was the only one on the road. I was trekking that long stretch of Bataan, I think I was seeing some quick white images on the road side but I kept brushing it all aside. My heart wasn’t pumping, maybe it’s mothers’ prayers or what but I feel protected. Sometimes wordings in the Scriptures make wonders. That's how my mother trained me.

But Dang! I suddenly heard a loud noise.. and it was coming from my car. A loud clanking noise like a burst, like a flat tire or somethin’. I quickly checked my dashboard lights for any warning signs. There was nothin’ at all. I pulled over at the side of the road, next to the big trees and dark forest to make an inspection. And inspection means I have to get out of the car right? In the middle of fuckin nowhere 'neath the darkest side of the fuckin moon. I left the engine running for a quick take off if ever something unusual happens. I checked the temp guage.. it better not be overheating or I swear I’ll get back at that mechanic that fixed it first thing in the morning. But no it wasn’t, temperature was perfectly normal. 

Here’s the thing, I looked around and damn! the place is so creepy, there’s no way I’m gonna go out there I said, but.no choice, I had to grab the flash light step out and check. I jumped out. First thing I did was to check the dark surroundings for signs of any danger if ever. I said danger because I wanted to see humans and not ghosts. I kept brushing that thing aside. I never even entertained the thought of seeing them in the back of my car like in those freak flicks we know. But come to think of it, you know what they say “matakot ka sa buhay wag sa patay”. But when you’re out there alone you wouldn’t know the difference. I dunno I just tried to focus and tried to feel that i have no fear. Like stepping out there feeling like I'm a vampire my self. It helps somehow. And I felt like a vampire on the road alone. like some power in me wielding that I feel ready to gush out. And the music in the car cooperates perfectly. I popped the hood and pumped the volume up to well you know scare the spirits away or somethin’. That’s at least how they do it.. I guess. My heart was pumping a little bit I swear. But.. there’s nothin’ I can do. I just thought I was one of them, I just walked like a vampire and moved like a vampire, I dunno what the hell I was doin’ but.. whatever it is.. it was working. I was shaking off those creepin’ fear. I think I was playing ‘The Crimson’ by Atreyu.  You know what they say.. "Fear makes the wolf bigger than he is".

I dunno. I guess I just want to feel something. Like a quick adventure I couldn't forget and could tell my kids someday. I wanted them spirits lurking around to feel that I am just passing through, that I mean no harm. And that I am ready for anything drastic. It's some sort of a transit. A transit of Mars. 

I was walking around the area so relaxed. I checked the rad and it wasn’t leaking. I said somethin’ like ‘good job’, a quick whisper to the mechanic that fixed it. Then I readied the jack and walked around the car bringing the cross-wrench and flashlight with me inspecting tires one by one. I was ready to change any fuckin’ tire what ever it takes, I’m a vampire remember? I inspected it, touched it, kicked it, and damn it everything was A-ok. So where did that noise come from? Weird. 

But then.. I stopped.. I thought a heard somethin'.. some wailing thing from afar or whut... WOOPS!! I quickly cut the machismo thing to some point and quickly hurried inside and stepped on it. And guess what.. when I clicked the high beams? there were bats flying around. Whuutduufuuuuuck!! get me outta here!!

Okay here's the case..


This is a criminal case.. here's the facts: On 21 January 1945, Urbano Marasigan dressed in a Japanese uniform..

No no.. he was not in for a trick or treat.. this is the real Japs war.. 

.. armed with a rifle and accompanied by a band of armed men went to the house of Macario Siores in Concepcion Banahaw, Sariaya, Tayabas, Quezon (shouting trick or treat!!-big joke). The dude raided the house and searched for Macario who was believed by the Japanese is associated with the guerrillas as a messenger.

He was asked by Marasigan if he was a guerilla and he denied it. Macario was then dragged to his father’s house a stone throw away and his father and sibling Nicasio and Maximo were asked the same question. They took Macario and Maximo but left their father Nicasio due to his old age.

The siblings were then brought towards the mountain and were never heard from. A month later Marasigan yelled at Macario’s wife not to wait for her husband for he is already dead. Eventually he was seen accompanied by his father to Nicasio’s house to plead for forgiveness.

The dude was arrested of course.. 

The appellant admitted in open court that he was a Filipino citizen. On or prior to January 21, 1945, Marasigan was a member of the Japanese Military Police in Sariaya, Tayabas (Quezon). He was often seen wearing a Japanese uniform and carrying a rifle and he used to accompany Japanese patrols and raiding parties. But he alibied that it was impossible for him to be part of the raid as he was arrested and remained in Japanese custody from the 21st January until the month of March.

Tsk.. loud and proud... engot talaga..

But The People’s Court through a careful review of the evidence had established beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him of Treason sentencing him to Reclusion Perpetua with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay a fine of P10,000, plus costs.

His counsel however raised the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.

E walang pinag-aralan eh..  

BTW Our oldest penal code, we inherited from our Spanish colonizers by a royal decree in 1870. The so-called 'Codigo Penal'.  Some of its provision were inapplicable on Philippine soil and the code was considered inadequate in the changing of times and so this was replaced by the Spanish authorities with the old Penal Code which took effect in 1876. This law was effective in the Philippines until the American colonization. When the Americans administered the Philippines through Commissions they found out our penal code was lacking in terms of the rights of the accused. And so they introduced a more specific, humane, and extensive coverage penal system, and Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability was one of the portions introduced revising the whole code into what is now The Revised Penal Code. This case was 1945, the Revised Penal Code was enacted in 1930 and so in time Marasigan's lawyer invoked the Alternative Circumstance of the Degree of Instruction and Education of the Offender which would have an effect of either aggravating or mitigating the offender's criminal liability depending on his level of instruction.  In this case the lawyer is resigned to his client's fate being found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And so he was doing the least thing that he can do, he was invoking the Alternative Circumstance provision to lessen Marasigan's penalty to a lower degree due to his client's lack of education. 

And it seems his contention is tenable.. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not Marasigan’s action was mitigated by lack of instruction.

RULING:

Court said..

Mitigating Circumstance of Lack of Instruction was found in favor of Marasigan and penalty should be modified accordingly.

The court stressed that Marasigan accompanied the Japanese raiding party that arrested the two brothers and took them to the mountains where they were presumably killed, there is no evidence that he had taken part in the killing. Neither is it shown that in effecting the arrest, the defendant had tortured, manhandled or otherwise abused Macario and Maximo.

For this reason, the court was inclined to be lenient with the appellant. Acting upon the plea of his counsel that the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction be considered in his favor inasmuch as Marasigan had not gone to and studied in the public schools; that he can neither read nor write English; that his schooling if it can be so called, was confined to studying and finishing the caton, an elementary Spanish reader for beginners,

The People's Court's judgment was modified. The penalty imposed by the People's Court was reduced to seventeen years of Reclusion Temporal and a fine of P5,000.

UNITED STATES vs. AH CHONG (1910)

Halloween's approaching. I like the old creep stuff. "They're coming to get you Barbara.."  This one's Jeepers Creepers. I dunno for some reason  this movie reminds me of my sister. Who happened to be was here actually in my review pad a week ago. "Why is it that there are dust on your table?... give me that rug over there... and your books! it's all scattered on the couch!!... are these soiled clothes I'm looking at?" hehe. "Ate I wouldn't know where to get it if you arrange those books" Even up to now she still baby's me. My niece kept laughing.

Okay here's the case..

This is another landmark case in Criminal Law. The events in this case happened in 1908, the court decided it in 1910. No no no, this was not decided in the US. If you're trying to figure out why the case was entitled as such and not under People of the Philippines, it's because this crime happened during the American regime. If you'd go back a bit to your college Philippine history class discussions you'd remember we were governed by America through Philippine Commissions then.

I think the first Philippine Commission was appointed by then US President William McKinley. Yeah McKinley.. the famous McKinley road in Bonifacio Global City that pass through Dasma? The second was the Taft Commission, of course you all know where that is, some of you may have brawled with its traffic almost everyday.   It was I think the The Jones Act of 1916 (Jones Bridge right?) that ended these Commissions replacing it an elected Philippine Senate as the Legislature's upper house and changed the form of our Judiciary.

This case happened during the Taft Commission. I think you can find this in Phil Reports and not in the SCRA. I'm not sure. Worse is if you're directed to look for the original case, and it's recorded in the Official Gazette. Pag sinabing Philippine Gazette, pucha.. maghanda ka na ng gas mask para sa alikabok. Malaki yun libro na yon malalaki din sulat panahon pa yata nila Lolo Manuel L. Quezon yun. Nakakita na ako nun pucha... parang hinihigop ka sa past.. like a portal to the period years or somethin'. Sa bagay, gusto ko yon.. I think I'm a lost soul here in this modern world at times. I think there's had been a mistake there somewhere, I should've been born earlier in those era.. I secretly admire those glamorous circas.. pupunta ka lang sa Quiapo naka americana ka pa.. haha hanep!... planchadong-planchado buhok mo. Ang lalalim ng tagalog nyo "O irog ko.. pagdamutan mo ang aking wagas na pagibig" hahahaha!!!.. taena. Wag lang sa panahon ng Hapon ah.. pucha pagtinapon ako don mag-gigirilya ako. 

Tatlo lang yan.. SCRA, PHIL REPORTS, OFFICIAL GAZZETTE. In that order. Ngayon lagay mo na INTERNET before SCRA.. I dunno what their gonna do with those old books probably send them all to the National Library. Wag naman.. pagnagkasunog or ginera tayo & binomba yun.. e di wala na tayong legacy. I think law schools should preserve them kahit it's seldom used now by law students.

Let's really get to the case..

Nakakatawa tong kasong to. You come across this case in your 1st year law in Crim1. Hindi pwedeng hinde, coz this is a landmark case that discusses 'Mistake of Fact'.  Besides, it is still quoted and invoked today in criminal cases and litigation should a defense of a "mistake of fact" be needed. The accused here was absolved of stabbing and killing the person trying to enter his room because he thought it was a robber, but it was only his roommate.

Tatlo yan.. according to Justice Sandoval's book, who also happens to be my teacher in Crim Rev:  1. Error in Personae  (Mistake of Fact or Mistake of Identity) Akala mo si Pedro yun pala si Juan, or Akala mo ninanakawan ko yun pala barkada mo lang pala kunyare iniisnatch yun bag mo tapos tatawa nasaksak mo ng ballpen 2. Abrratio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow) Maybabarilin ka iba tinamaan.   3. Prater Intentionem (Injurious result is greater than that intended) Sasampalin mo lang na out balance sya tumama ulo sa bato patay.

Ganto nangyare dito..

Si Ah Chong was a cook... in Fort McKinley. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. (mejo paranoid eh) After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. So he called out twice "Who is there?", but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, "If you enter the room, I will kill you." But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed on the door and believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife, struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate Pascual Gualberto.

You know when I was reading this case during my freshman year I was wondering why the fuckin' dude wasn't answering. Those were 3 loud calls by Ah Chong actually. There was no account anywhere in the case that the one behind the door was deaf. And I wouldn't think naka headset tong loko na to nakikinig sa i-pod.. ni radio ata na malalaking tubo wala pa non.

I found out in one account it was said that Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the spirit of mischief was playing a trick on Ah Chong during that time.

Ganon? Alam mo kase minsan mga boy mga bata pa to eh, mga malaro pa to eh. Lalo mga boy na bisaya.. bisaya mama ko kaya alam ko yan eh.  Well bisaya din ako ugali ko bisaya namana ko sa mama ko. Elvis ako, elbis, el bisaya. LOL. May mga house boy kase kame na bisaya noon.  Ganon.. naglolokohan sila, mga bugoy ba. Siguro naglolokohan din tong dalawang to previously... (hahaha heresay). "Sino yan?".... "Sino sabe yan? magsalita ka!" Tawa ng tawa naman tong isa sa likod ng pinto. "Pag pumasok ka!.. papatayin kita!! FPJ style to loko ka!" Lalo ngayon natuwa sa likod ng pinto si loko, kilig na kilig pa siguro tong bugoy na to. "FPJ pala ah.. ako si Lito Lapid!!" BLAGAG!! Pagpasok na pagpasok ni loko yun pinagsasaksak sya. Tsk tinde.

So seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds. (which was the right thing to do.. other than flight) Well according to the account there had been repeated robberies in Fort McKinley not long prior to the date of the incident, one of which took place in a house where Ah Chong was previously employed as cook so he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection. (E kusinero yung tao eh what do you expect, natural a kitchen knife would always be his everyday companion.)

So the guy was arrested, trial ensued. Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that Pascual was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite the defendant's warnings.

Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with mitigating circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor (prision mayor)  the minimum penalty prescribed by law.

ISSUE:

May Ah Chong be held criminally responsible in the case at bar?  Did defendant here committed a crime by reason of a mistake as to the facts?

RULING:

The Court said Ah Chong must be acquitted.

By reason of a mistake as to the facts, the defendant did an act for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be.

So meaning if Pascual was actually a thief, he will not be criminally liable (even if  basing it now by virtue of Art.11 (1) of the RPC) but would constitute the crime of homicide if the actor had known the true state of the facts like if he knew that it was actually Pascual.

Well the rulebooks say that "A person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit."

Voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act.  And if there's "malice" then it signifies the intent right? Alright let's throw in some latin legal maxims here..

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so. (there was no intent to kill his roommate)

Actus me incito factus non est meus actus - an act done by me against my will is not my act. (it was a form of self defense, thievery was rampant during those days) 

Ignorantia facti excusat - ignorance of a fact is an excuse (applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness, he placed the chair on the door and he called out 3 times as warning).

Court said defendant during that time acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense. That had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge. (Beautiful)

Don't forget this. This was a beautiful case in Criminal Law.

The Supreme Court reversed the  RTC ruling. And the defendant was acquitted. (and that seldom happens)

PEOPLE vs. GENOSA (2004)

"♫ This is my laast night with youu. ♪ Hold me like I'm more than just a frieend.. ♫ ♪Give me a memory I can use.. ♪"  -- Geez.. 11:15 in the evening and I'm.. trying to sing an Adele the most decent way I can on top of my voice in front of this fuckin' lagging computer.

Here's a landmark case, Criminal Law. The crime is parricide. You know the widely celebrated Lorena Bobbitt Case? 'Happened in the states. It made world-wide headings. Wife cut's the sleeping husband's dick? I'm wondrin' why it didn't happen here. Well the reason for that is her husband's philandering spree. Crazy woman isn't she? That's why when I'm gonna marry I'm really gonna take a close look at the woman's emotional and mental state. Baka pag natutulog ako biglang putulin yun (beep! beep!) ko eh. 'Wonder how it feels that must be crazy. A doctor friend I know said it can be put back together. "Really doc?" "Ofcourse" "But will it function same as its previous state prior?" "Kung maganda pagkagawa eh" "MAGANDA PAGKAGAWA??!!!  ARrGh!... hahah anu yun overhaul ng makina?" "Kailangan makuha mo sya ng maaga and fresh pa" "FRESH PA!!!... jusko day" (hehehe tawa ng tawa yung nurse eh) Geez, imagine grabbing your dick on your way out. Crazy.

Take note of this case, it's a fairly new case. This is a landmark case in Criminal Law. Listen... this is the first time in the Philippines that the "battered woman syndrome" was used as a defense. And it won. Well of course the  wife was already incarcerated but she was recommended for parole just because of this defense used by her lawyer. Atty. De Jesus is correct. It's better to use a defense, or do motions or petitions and plead which you think the court wouldn't grant than use about 10 pleadings that you know the court would grant. Malay mo nga naman i-grant katulad nito. At least you can really say that you have exhausted all remedies and did your job well.

Facts of the case states that ah.. the wife had suffered maltreatment from her husband for over eight years?.. That's too long. This is probably a long suffering sacrificing woman. But then again that remains to be proved. Sometimes women allow themselves to be pushed that far and bear it because their uneducated, they had no means, and they don't have anywhere else to go.  

The thing was.. she was 8 months pregnant when, one evening, her husband came home drunk and started battering her. (so binugbog). 

'Tang ina..

Shouting that his wife "might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag" him.  So he dragged her towards a drawer where he kept a gun, but was not able to open the drawer because it was locked. 

So papatayin talaga ni kolokoy..

So he got out a cutter from his wallet, but dropped it. (Lasing na talaga eh) The wife was able to hit his arm with a pipe and escape into another room. 

Here's the thing..

The wife, thinking of all the suffering that her husband had been inflicting on her all those years and thinking that he might really kill her and her unborn child, distorted the drawer and got the gun. She shot her husband, who was by then asleep on the bed. And killed him.

So take note applying the principles of  Self Defense  1.  the Unlawful Aggression had ceased. 2. Holding a gun pointing it on a sleeping person is definitely not a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack... in fact there was no longer an attack. 3.   Lack of sufficient provocation.. this had been present, in fact she ran to the other room. But who knows, maybe there was, we can infer from the words of her husband "...so there will be nobody to nag" she really might have startled something but I wouldn't think it's enough. It's understandable in women. 

So she was tried and convicted for parricide, which is punishable by an indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years) to death. On appeal, she alleged "battered woman syndrome" as a form of self-defense.

ISSUE: 

Considering that the elements of a justifying circumstance did not suffice or not all the requisites of  Art. 11 were present to invoke self defense, may "battered woman syndrome" be regarded as a form of self-defense to exempt the accused from criminal liability?

RULING: 

The Supreme Court said YES.  (Kalain mo yon?) 

The court said, however, that the records lack supporting evidence that would establish all the essentials of the battered woman syndrome as manifested specifically in this case. 

But more specifically, the Court stated: 

By the time the wife killed her husband, there was no longer any aggression on his part to justify a claim of self-defense. 

However, the Court also found that the cycle of abuse inflicted by the husband resulted in POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER  on the part of the wife, which lessened her freedom of action, intelligence, and intent, resulting in a "psychological paralysis".

I dunno, maybe the lawyer had presented an amicus curiae such as a medical expert like a psychiatrist or a psychometrician to build up an opinion evidence.. reason why the court accepted it who knows? (nope I didn't read the actual case).   

Also, the battering she received at his hands before she killed him produced PASSION & OBFUSCATION (which is a mitigating circumstance) which overcame her reason. 

So these were appreciated by the Court as mitigating circumstances. What about the killing of someone while asleep, isn't that Treachery? An Aggravating Circumstance?

The Court found that there was no treachery. 

The wife's conviction was affirmed, but considering the mitigating circumstances, her sentence was reduced. Since she had already served more than the minimum sentence, the Court said that she might be considered for parole.

So pwede palang defense yon ah? Were looking at a precedent here. Hehe.

PEOPLE vs. NAVARRO (1998)

Shet.. sayang. Checking audio files of compilation of class lectures on my computer I have only recorded (using my smart phone) 2 lectures under Atty. De Jesus in my Remedial Law 2 class. Geez! to think that the guy is fast rising up as one of the best criminal lawyers in town and is such sharp individual where litigation is actually his forte, makes me cringe now thinking that I really should've  (dang!) took advantage and recorded every single teeny-weeny bit of his lectures which were full of smart practical advice and suggestions on remedying certain situations you'd get yourself into in future practice. But good thing I recorded his lectures on TRIAL perse. But still I don't think it's enough. I hope he'd be commissioned by the school to conduct symposiums or lectures on actual law practice. Thing is, the school doesn't seem to have the resources to facilitate gatherings like this much less have good facilities that could address these kind of student needs.          

Let's talk about one of the best doctrines there is in Criminal Law particularly in inducement of Evidence. The legal maxim Res Gestae. You must've come across this latin word when you were in your freshmen year but never gave a damn meticulously looking at it's meaning since you know it will be tackled in your higher year once you get to Evidence.

RES GESTAE.  What is Res Gestae?  (Tae ni Res.. tsk tsk.. don't even go there)  What is the Doctrine of Res Gestae?

The Latin root word means "things done" it means (As stated in.. the internet... I hope this is Black's Law Dictionary I'm lifting it from)  all circumstances surrounding and connected with a happening. 

Thus, the res gestae of a crime includes the immediate area and all occurrences and statements immediately after the crime. The doctrine provides that Statements made within the res gestae of a crime or accident may be admitted in court even though they are "hearsay" on the basis that spontaneous statements in those circumstances are reliable. In other words, res gestae is an exception to the Heresay Rule in our Rules of Evidence.  

Example: May krimen na nangyare.. and nakita mo..  you're the lone witness to a killing of a bystander by a holdupper, matapos nyang patayen nakita ka nya, sinabe nya "pagmagsumbong ka ikaw ang isusunod ko". Came the authorities investigating, kaya natakot ka, sabe mo di mo nakita. So walang kasong na file. After 3 months pumunta ka sa police station, deniscribe mo yung assailant. So lalabas ngayon 2 magkaiba ang testimony mo. How does Res Gestae work?    Ang Res Gestae ganito. Dahil takot ka magsalita sa first testimony mo.. the court will take judicial notice. "Ano ba.. takot ba to.. o ayaw magsalita o.. talagang walang nakita?".

Under the Hearsay rule kase courts normally refuses to admit as evidence statements that a witness says he or she heard another person say. The doctrine of res gestae provided an exception to this rule. Though previously a mere part of the common law Res gestae is now a doctrine used as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility. Res Gestae usually fall on 3 examples. 1. Words or phrases that either form part of, or explain, a physical act, 2. Exclamations that are so spontaneous as to belie concoction, and  3. Statements that are evidence of someone's state of mind.  In other words it's not premeditated but must have some form of spontaneity.  

Now the Case..

A case filed about January of 1994 submits two Informations, one for murder (under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code) and the other for violation of Presidential Decree 1866 (Illegal Possession of Unlicensed Firearm)  at the Alaminos Pangasinan RTC  against a certain NOEL NAVARRO. (Don't think about the Illegal Possession of Firearm too much, we'll focus more on the murder case. The violation of that special law was just used as an aggravating circumstance to raise the penalty 2 degrees higher, but there's nothing more to that)

Here's what happened.. 

On or about January 5 of 1991, in the evening, near Enoc Theater at Poblacion, Alaminos, Province of Pangasinan, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot FERDINAND RABADON several times which caused his instantaneous death.

How did this happen?..

Well According to the Prosecution side:

January 5, 1991, about 9 in the evening, Jose Rabago (this guy is the witness) went to Enoc Theater located at Poblacion, Alaminos, Pangasinan to view some movie pictures exhibited outside the theater (yung mga 'Now Showing', 'Coming Soon').  When he was about to go home on board his motorcycle, he was invited by Ferdinand Rabadon, (this is the guy who got killed)  who was drinking beer inside Adela's Restaurant, to join him. Rabago obliged. (So obviously the two are good friends).

Later, Rabadon borrowed Rabago's motorcycle which he used in going to the bus terminal to check if his wife had already arrived from Zamboanga. Upon his return, Rabadon invited Rabago to Five Doors Disco (Pare tara disco tayo) but the latter opted to go home (Pagod na ako gusto ko na umuwe magpahinga eh amin na motor ko). Rabadon, who was still on the motorcycle holding its handle bars, offered to drive Rabago home (Okey sige tara uwi na tayo. Ako na magddrive angkas ka nalang pagod ka na eh).

When Rabago was about to mount the motorcycle, Noel Navarro and Ming Basial arrived. He was pushed by Ming Basila,  causing him to fall on his buttocks, after which Basila shot Rabadon twice at the back. While Rabadon was already lying down with his leg pinned by the motorcycle, Noel Navarro shot him three (3) times.

So tinulak  yun isa, binaril yung isa ng 5 times. twice dun sa isa, trice naman dun sa isa.. takbo ngayon yun tinulak.

Rabago ran away, but after noticing that Navarro and Basila left the scene, he returned and saw Rabadon dying and gasping for breath. 

Rabago then saw Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon, (...bat naman itlog? mahilig ba sa itlog to?) a policeman, to whom he reported Rabadon's killing On January 6, 1991, Rabago was investigated by policeman Rolando Rabadon (Nu ba yan.. anu ba magkakamaganak ba to?) but he said that HE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. 

During the hearing of the case, (Which was held 3 years after) Rabago explained that he did not divulge the identities of the assailants for fear of his life. He claimed that some policemen in Alaminos, Pangasinan were members of the Aguila Gang which killed people. The gang allegedly led by one Ramon Navarro, accused's brother.

Okay.. unsolved case right? Fast forward 3 years after...

The NBI interrogated Rabago on January 3, 1994, three years after the said killing at which time, Rabago named Noel Navarro and Ming Basila as the authors of Rabadon's killing.

Now According to the Defense side:

Accused-Appellant Noel Navarro denied any participation in the killing, stating that..

On January 5, 1991, in the evening, Ferdinand Rabadon was shot to death near the Enoc Theater at Poblacion, Alaminos, Pangasinan. Almost immediately after the shooting incident, Jose Rabago reported the incident to one policeman, Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon, who was inside a restaurant near the Victory Liner Terminal. The policeman Rabadon responded by going to the place pointed to by Jose Rabago, but the victim was no longer at the place of the incident as he was brought to the hospital. Later, Jose Rabago was investigated by policeman Rolando "Lando" Rabadon regarding the shooting incident, but Jose Rabago, when asked, told policeman Rolando "Lando" Rabadon that HE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. Considering the negative result of the police investigation, no case was filed by the police against anybody for the shooting to death of Ferdinand Rabadon.

"Three (3) years later, on January 5, 1994, at about 8:00 o' clock in the evening, a composite team of the NBI served a search warrant and warrant of arrest to Ramon Navarro, brother of accused-appellant in his residence and failing to find Ramon Navarro, the composite team of the NBI went to the house where accused-appellant was staying where they saw Noel Navarro. Accused-appellant was searched, but nothing was found in his body. Accused-appellant was arrested right then and there without any warrant of arrest shown to him by the NBI. In fact, it was admitted that the NBI composite team at the time had no warrant of arrest against accused-appellant.

The NBI composite team boarded accused-appellant in a white van and was brought to the house of Congressman Hernani Braganza in Alaminos, Pangasinan. Later, the NBI composite team went to Lucap, Alaminos, Pangasinan to fetch Fiscal Rabina and from there, they all proceeded to the police station of Alaminos, Pangasinan. 

The following day, January 6, 1994, Prosecutor Rabina filed the Information charging accused-appellant of murder for allegedly killing Ferdinand Rabadon on January 5, 1991, three (3) years earlier, without conducting a preliminary investigation. Also filed an Information for violation of P.D. 1866.  

The defense presented three witnesses: Jose Rabago, who recanted his previous testimony; NBI Director Teodoro Galang, who testified as to the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the appellant without warrant; and Noel Navarro, the appellant himself.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

Accused assisted by his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and filed for petition for bail. A protracted full-blown hearing was ensued, and the prosecution and  defense presented their respective witnesses and documentary evidence. The petition was denied. Instead the lower court rendered an assailed decision declaring accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and to suffer the single and indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. And to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P50,000.00. 

But the court considered the illegal possession of firearm subject of the Information merely as an aggravating circumstance considering that the alleged firearm used was not recovered by the authorities and never presented in court.

The appellant contends that the lower court committed errors: So obviously there were issues of Illegal Arrest, Illegal Possession of Fire Arms, Credibility and Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence, and Res Gestae. Let's center on the issue of Res Gestae. 

ISSUE:

Did the trial court erred in not considering the report of Prosecution Witness Jose Rabago to policeman Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon and the result of the investigation conducted by Policeman Rolando "Lando" Rabadon that his companion was killed, but did not tell policeman Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon that accused-appellant and one Ming Basila killed the deceased, as part of the RES GESTAE;

RULING: 

Court said the appeal is devoid of merit.

The appellant contends that, in considering the statements which Rabago gave to both SPO2 Virgilio Rabadon and Patrolman Rolando Rabadon, the trial court erred in concluding that such statements were not part of res gestae.

At the outset, it must be stated that res gestae pertains to the admissibility of evidence, and not to its weight and sufficiency. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.

The Court defined Res Gestae as follows:

"Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.

Rabago's statement to SPO2 Rabadon that someone had killed his companion can be considered part of the res gestae, and is thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. It was a spontaneous statement that was made right after a startling occurrence and that refers to such occurrence. However, the same cannot be said of his statement to Patrolman Rabadon, as it lacked the requisite spontaneity, having been given in answer to questions propounded in an investigation, a day after the incident in question.

The appellant seems to imply that when Rabago reported the incident to SPO2 Rabadon, Rabago's silence regarding the identity of the killers created doubt as to the appellant's culpability for such killing and, thus, should have been likewise considered by the lower court in appellant's favor as part of the res gestae. This proposition deserves scant consideration. Such omission cannot be taken to mean that appellant was NOT the culprit. The witness was simply silent as to the identity of the assailant. Such omission, as has been discussed, can be attributed to Rabago's fear of the Navarros.

WITNESSES' DELAYED REPORTING OF WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT A CRIME DOES NOT RENDER THEIR TESTIMONIES FALSE OR INCREDIBLE, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. But more than this, there is always the inherent fear of reprisal, which is quite understandable, especially if the accused is a man of power and influence in the community. 

Actually in People v. Vias, it was held that "the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case, as well as to give information to the authorities is a matter of judicial notice." 

The argument does not persuade. True, Rabago did not mention the name of the appellant when he reported the killing to both SPO2 Virgilio Rabadon and Patrolman Rolando Rabadon however, he explained that he was apprehensive about talking to the police, as he suspected that some of them were members of the dreaded Aguila Gang 

Here's the transcription of the cross-examination..

Q: Mr. Witness, when you were asked by policeman Lando Rabadon about what you learned of the shooting to death of Boyet Rabadon, you told him you did not see anything, why did you tell policeman Lando Rabadon that you did not see anything? 

Mister Wetness.. wen yu wer aaaahhh  askd by deee pulisman.. a cerrrtain aaaahh... SPO2 Lando Rrrrabadon... yu told hem yo dead nut sii anything for dat materrr. Why did yu tell polisman Landa Rabadonnnn  dat yuuu.. dat yuuu ded not see anything.... der you arrr... answerrr my question LOL.. 

(This is the beauty of the court litigation... kung sino yung madalas mag-carabao english yun yung usually ha.. pinakamagaling na criminal lawyer... at saka yung... pinakamalakas magmura hahahaha.. naampucha... these are the ones that are seasoned lawyers.. and have been to courtroom battles in and out and could really show you true battle scars) 

A: I was afraid, sir.  (I was afred ser) 
Q: And why were you afraid?  (An why wer yu afred?.. will yu tel dee honorable court why wer yu afred?)
A: I did not have confidence in the police. (I did nat hab cmpindence.. en da polis)
Q: Didn't you have confidence in the police? (Wen yu say yu did nat hab conpdens on da polis.. wat ar yu toking about?) 
A: Because some policemen are members of Aguila.
Q: And what is Aguila?
A: Aguila gang, sir. (Agela gang ser)
Q: What is the Aguila gang? (Gad demet  wat ar yu toking about misterrr aaah.. witnes? wat is ahh.. agela gang? is dat the same as the ah DDS.. the so-called Dabaw deth squad?) LOL
A: It is killing people, sir. (I know it is killing pipol.. but ar dey killing dose suspected wid aaah... wid aaah... aaahh.. drug use.. orr shall we col your honorr aah.. substance abuse?)

He further testified to the pervasive climate of fear engulfing his town: 

Q: In your affidavit, Mr. Witness, you mentioned that there were other witnesses to the killing. According to you, on January 5, 1994, there were other witnesses  and your answer was "yes", but nobody there talked anymore due to fear for their lives.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what about your statement that these other witnesses fear for their lives, was that not your statement in your sworn statement?  (An wat about yorr stetment dat this other witneses fffffeear for ther liiiiiiiives... was dat nat yorrr aaaah... stetment in yor own sworrn stetment.. misterrr aaah.. wetness?)
A: Yes, sir, they are afraid.
Q: And what about you, are you not afraid of the Navarros?
A: I am afraid, sir.
Q: Are you saying, Mr. Witness, that a lot of people here in Alaminos are afraid of the Navarros?
A: Yes, sir. 

Der yu arrr your honorr ah este...

With regard to Rabago's recantation of his previous testimony as a prosecution witness, narrating the killing of Rabadon and identifying the appellant as one of the malefactors, suffice it to say that this earlier testimony was clear, candid and consistent, as shown hereunder: 

Q: After Ming Basila shot Boyet Rabadon, what happened next?
A: Noel Navarro followed.
Q: What did Noel Navarro do after Ming Basila shot Rabadon from behind?
A: Boyet Rabadon was already lying down and he shot him.
Q: You said that Noel Navarro shot Ferdinand Rabadon, how many times did Noel Navarro shoot Boyet Rabadon?
A: Thrice, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, considering that it was about nine o' clock in the evening when Ming Basila and Noel Navarro shot Boyet Rabadon, how were you able to see Basila and Noel Navarro shoot Boyet Rabadon?
A: There was a light, sir.
Q: How many lights were there?
A: About three.
Q: How far were you from Boyet Rabadon when Ming Basila and Noel Navarro shot him?
A: About three steps, sir.

This was one of the most credible witnesses that ever stood on the witness stand. Considering that Rabago had three different testimonies, and have recanted his statements at the course of the case, and the Doctrine of Res Gestae had to be applied? The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling finding consistency is his testimony.   

It must be stressed also that Rabago's testimony was compatible with the findings of Dr. Francisco E. Viray, the medicolegal officer who autopsied the victim's body. Rabago said that Rabadon had been shot five times, once in the nape and four times in other parts of his body. Such details of his testimony as a prosecution witness, aside from the fact that no ill motive or bias was ascribed to him by the appellant, lends earmarks of truth to said testimony.