THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 205316, June 29, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMEO DE CASTRO AND RANDOLF1 PABANIL, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
That on or about the 16th day of August, 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with LPG tank, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill, abuse of superior strength and insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hit on the head with the said LPG Tank one Senior Police Officer II (SPOII) Orlando De Leon, a police officer, while in the performance of his official duties, thereby inflicting upon the latter traumatic and fatal injuries which caused his death.When arraigned, the four accused pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated December 4, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66 in Crim. Case No. 06-1675, which found ROMEO DE CASTRO alias "Omeng" and RANDOLF PABANIL alias "Oloy" GUILTY of MURDER and sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION in that the amount of P12,000.00 as interment and burial expenses to be awarded [to] the heirs of Sr. Police Officer II Orlando De Leon shall be DELETED. The amount of civil indemnity to be awarded [to] the heirs of SPO II De Leon shall also be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. In addition, Appellants ROMEO DE CASTRO and RANDOLF PABANIL are ORDERED to pay the heirs of SPO II De Leon moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 and temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00. All awards shall further incur interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.The CA agreed with the RTC that appellants failed to prove the elements of defense of a relative. The CA noted that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of De Leon. In fact, Randolf hit De Leon because he thought that De Leon was with the man who punched him and not because he was threatened by De Leon's gun. And if it was indeed the threat of a gun which prompted appellants to hit De Leon, there was no more unlawful aggression when Randolf repeatedly attacked De Leon. The CA also said that Romeo admitted he already had possession of the gun when appellant Randolf repeatedly hit De Leon with a gas tank. If De Leon was the aggressor, De Leon's aggression ceased the moment he was disarmed. When Randolf repeatedly hit De Leon who had no more weapon and had fallen, there is thus no more self-defense or defense of a relative, said the CA. The CA further noted that De Leon's skull was broken into small pieces and held that the severity of De Leon's injuries reveals that the force used against him by appellants was not reasonable to disarm him or prevent him from harming others.
SO ORDERED.15
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines the crime of murder, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryTo be convicted of murder, the following must be established: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide.17chanrobleslaw
ART. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
And as testified to by Lonzame, after the accused left, appellant Romeo returned, picked up the gas tank and dropped it to De Leon.20chanrobleslaw
Q - You said that your cousin Randolf Pabanil came, where did he come from? A - From behind, sir. Q - From behind of whom? A - Behind the man wearing leather jacket, sir. x x x x Q - xxx what did Randolf do to this man? A - He suddenly punched the man behind his ear, sir. Q - So what happened to the man wearing leather jacket? A - He went off balance but he was able to draw his gun. Q - Now, what did you do next, Mr. Witness? A - I was able to grab the gun and then Randolf punched the man 3 times. Q - You said you were able to get hold the gun and you also said that Randolf was able to punch that man, how many times he punched that man? A - Two or three times, sir. Q - Now what happened after Mr. Randolf Pabanil punched him 2 to 3 times, what happened next, Mr. Witness? A - Nabitawan ko yong baril. Q - Mr. Witness, you said that the man wearing leather jacket was able to draw the gun and you said that you were able to get hold of this, you likewise stated that Mr. Randolf Pabanil punched him while he was still holding the gun, now what happened after this? A - The gun went-off sir. Q - Now, was there anything that was hit by this gunshot? A - None, sir. Q - Now, after the gun went-off what happened next? A - The man dropped his gun and then Randolf got the gas tank and hit him on his neck. Q - Q - After the gun was dropped what did you do next Mr. Witness? A - I took the gun, sir. Q- Now, while you are holding the gun what was Mr. Randolf Pabanil doing? A - He hit the man another (sic) times, sir. Q - What did he hit the man with? A - LPG gas tank, sir. Q - So all in all how many time[s] did Randolf Pabanil hit the man with the LPG gas tank? A - Twice, sir.19 (Emphasis supplied)
ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryUnlawful aggression is the condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a relative.21 Here, we agree with the CA that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of De Leon. Randolf himself testified that he hit De Leon because he thought that De Leon was with the man who punched him and not because he was threatened by De Leon's gun, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
x x x x
Atty. Villalon: Why did you hit him, Mr. Witness? Witness: Because I thought he was with the guy who punched me, sir. x x x x Atty. Villalon: So what did you think when you saw Mr. Orlando de Leon holding his gun and cursing your cousin and telling him not to come near him, what did you think? Witness: Nothing, sir, I just thought of hitting him, sir. Atty. Villalon: Why? Witness: Because I thought that he was the one who ordered that I would be hit, sir.22
As to the award of damages, the CA correctly awarded P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P30,000 as exemplary damages and P25,000 as temperate damages. The award of 6% interest per annum on the monetary awards from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid is also correct.23chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM the May 23, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04343.
With costs against the accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
Peralta,*(Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo,**Perez,*** and Perlas-Bernabe,****JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2071 dated June 23, 2015.
**Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2084-A dated June 29, 2015.
***Designated additional Member per Raffle dated March 30, 2015.
****Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2072 dated June 23, 2015.
1 Also spelled as Randolph in some parts of the records.
2Rollo, pp. 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Agnes Reyes-Carpio concurring.
3 Records, p. 1.
4Rollo, pp. 3-4; TSN, July 17, 2008, pp. 4-11.
5 Id. at 4; TSN, July 17, 2008, pp. 15-19.
6 CA rollo, p. 80.
7Rollo, p. 5; TSN, August 23, 2007, pp. 3 & 6.
8 Id.; TSN, September 13, 2007, pp. 16, 21-27.
9 Id. at 6-7; TSN, December 10, 2008, pp. 5-27.
10 Id. at 7; TSN, March 25, 2009, p. 5.
11 CA rollo, pp. 78-85. Penned by Presiding Judge Joselito C. Villarosa.
12 Id. at 85.
13 Id. at 72.
14 Id. at 73-75.
15Rollo, pp. 17-18.
16 Id. at 33-34.
17People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014, 714 SCRA 107, 127.
18People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 186528, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 660, 676.
19 TSN, March 25, 2009, pp. 5-6.
20 TSN, July 17, 2008, p. 19.
21People v. Mediado, G.R. No. 169871, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 366, 369.
22 TSN, December 10, 2008, pp. 19-20.
23People v. Bosito, G.R. No. 209346, January 12, 2015, p. 8.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary