THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO OLARBE Y BALIHANGO, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
The accused who shows by clear and convincing evidence that the death of the victim arose from the need for self-preservation in the face of the victim's deadly unlawful aggression, and there was a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the same, is entitled to acquittal on the ground of self-defense in the absence of any indication of his having provoked such unlawful aggression.
In self-defense and defense of stranger, the circumstances as the accused perceived them at the time of the incident, not as others perceived them, should be the bases for determining the merits of the plea.
That on or about May 7, 2006 at about 12:00 o'clock midnight, at Sitio Pananim, Municipality of Luisiana, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery and with the use of a rifle (airgun) converted to caliber .22 and a bolo, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot and hack one ROMEO ARCA with the said weapons, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound and hacking wounds on the different parts of his body which resulted to (sic) his instantaneous death, to the damage and. prejudice of his surviving heirs.The CA recounted the factual and procedural background of the case in its assailed decision thusly:
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
Arraigned, OLARBE initially pled not guilty to the crime charged. Upon re-arraignment, OLARBE pleaded guilty but subsequently withdrew his plea of guilt and manifested for the presentation of his defense. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution's diegesis of the case is synthesized as follows:
On 8 May 2006 at around 12:30 o'clock midnight, OLARBE voluntarily surrendered to police officers SPO2 Vivencio Aliazas, PO3 Ricardo Cruz and PO1 William Cortez at the Police Station of Luisiana, Laguna. OLARBE informed them that he happened to have killed Romeo Arca (Arca) in Sitio Pananim, Luisiana, Laguna. Forthwith, OLARBE was booked, arrested and detained at the police station. Thereafter, the police officers proceeded to the crime scene and found the lifeless body of Arca with several wounds and the bolo used by OLARBE in killing him. The Death Certificate revealed that Arca's antecedent cause of death was gunshot wounds and his immediate cause of death was hacked wounds.
For his part, OLARBE invoked self-defense and avowed -
On the fateful incident, he and his wife Juliet were sleeping in their house in Barangay San Antonio, Sitio Pananim, Luisiana, Laguna. Suddenly they were awakened by the sound of a gunshot and shouting from Arca who appeared to be drunk. Arca was holding a rifle (an airgun converted to a calibre .22) and shouted "mga putang ina ninyo, pagpapatayin ko kayo." Then, Arca forcibly entered their house and aimed the gun at them. OLARBE immediately grabbed the gun from him and they grappled for its possession. OLARBE managed to wrest the gun away from Arca. In a jiff, OLARBE shot Arca causing the latter to lean sideward ("napahilig"). Nevertheless, Arca managed to get his bolo from his waist and continued to attack them. OLARBE grabbed the bolo and in their struggle for its possession, they reached the outer portion of the house. OLARBE was able to wrestle the bolo and instantly, he hacked Arca. After the killing incident, OLARBE voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities.4
WHEREFORE, this court finds that herein accused was unable to prove the justifying circumstance of self-defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on his part and further, he employed treachery when he killed the victim Romeo Arca. Thus, this Court finds the accused Rodolfo Olarbe y Balihango GUILTY of "Murder".
On the other hand, finding that herein accused voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities of the Mrn1icipal Police Station of Luisiana, Laguna immediately after killing Romeo Arca, he is entitled to the said mitigating circumstance. The accused Rodolfo Olarbe y Balihango is thereby hereby sentenced to the minimum penalty of imprisonment for the crime of murder, which is a period of TWENTY (20) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO RECLUSION PERPETUA.
The accused Rodolfo Olarbe y Balihango is also hereby ordered to pay to the heirs of Romeo Arca the following:
Civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00;
Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00;
Actual damages in the following amounts - P1,000.00 as expenses for church services from the Iglesia Filipina Independiente; the amount of P1,200.00 for expenses incurred in Jeralyn's Flower Shop; the amount of P20,000.00 paid to Mancenido Funeral Service; fees paid to the Municipal Treasurer of Luisiana in the amount of P150.00; and, the amount of P15,000.00 paid for the burial lot; and,
Exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.5
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated 13 August 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. SC-12274, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Rodolfo Olarbe is ORDERED to pay temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00. He is further ORDERED to pay interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the civil indemnity, moral, exemplary and temperate damages awarded from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.Hence, this appeal.
SO ORDERED.6
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.Let us now revisit the events of that fateful night of May 7, 2006. Arca, armed with the rifle (described as an airgun converted into a caliber .22) and the bolo, we to the house of Olarbe towards midnight. The latter and his household re already slumbering, but were roused from bed because Arca fired his gun and was loudly shouting, Mga putang ina ninyo, pagpapatayin ko kayo. Thereafter, Arca forcibly entered Olarbe's house. Olarbe managed to the gun of Arca, and they struggled for control of it. Upon wresting the gun from Arca, Olarbe fired at him, causing him to totter. But Arca next took out the bolo from his waist and charged at Olarbe's common-law spouse. This forced Olarbe to fight for possession of the bolo, and upon seizing the bolo, he hacked Arca with it.
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.
• Lacerated wound on the forehead;Only Olarbe's account of the incident existed in the records, but instead of giving weight to the account, the RTC and the CA rejected his pleas of self-defense and defense of stranger based on their common holding that Arca had been weakened from being hit on the head; and concluded that consequently Arca could not have charged with his bolo.
• Lacerated wound, front rib area;
• Lacerated wound on the left upper quadrant;
• Lacerated wound on the left lower quadrant;
• Lacerated wound on the occipital area
• Two (2) hacking wounds posterior of neck; and
• Hacking wound on lumbar area.14
It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter the principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.22 [Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis]Lastly, the absence of any showing that Olarbe had provoked Arca, or that he had been induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive has been equally palpable. We deem to be established, therefore, that the third elements of the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of stranger were present.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on March 22, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07112; ACQUITS accused RODOLFO OLARBE y. BALIHANGO on the grounds of SELF-DEFENSE and DEFENSE OF A STRANGER; DECLARES him NOT CIVILLY LIABLE to the heirs of the late Romeo Area; and DIRECTS his IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT unless he is otherwise legally confined for another cause.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release RODOLFO OLARBE y BALIHANGO unless there are other lawful causes for which he should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the Director, Bureau of Corrections, in Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED TO REPORT the action taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this decision.
SO ORDERED."
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of
Court |
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, pp. 45-57; penned by Presiding Judge Cynthia R. Mariño-Ricablanca.
2Rollo, pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan.
3 CA rollo, p. 45.
4Rollo, pp. 4-5.
5 CA rollo, p. 57.
6Rollo, p. 9.
7 Id. at 19-21; 24-25.
8Velasquez v. People, G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017, 820 SCRA 438, 442.
9 Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. 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.
x x x x
10 Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:
x x x x
3. Anyone who acts indefense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
x x x x
11Cabuslay v. People, G.R. No. 129875, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 241, 253.
12People v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 150, 153 (x x x It is basic that once an accused in a prosecution for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased, he assumed the burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifYing circumstance that would avoid his criminal liability. Having thus admitted being the author of the death of the victim, [the accused] carne to bear the burden of proving the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court, and he would he held criminally liable unless he established self-defense by sufficient and satisfactory proof. He should discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, because the Prosecution's evidence, even if weak, would not be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing. Nonetheless, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remained with the State until the end of the proceedings.).
13 G.R. No. 172606, November 2011, 661 SCRA 159, 167-168.
14Rollo, p. 8.
15People v. White, 409 N. E., 2d 73, 42 Ill Dec. 578, 87 Ill. App. 3d 321.
16Baker v. Commonwealth, 677 S. W. 2d 876.
17State v. Leidholm, 334 N. W. 2d 811; Tanguma v. State, App.-Corpus Christi, 721 S.W. 2d 408.
18 40 CJS § 131.
19Jayme v. People, G.R. No. 124506, September 9, 1999, 314 SCRA 117, 123-124.
20People v. Guarin, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999, 317 SCRA 244, 253-254.
21Jayme v. Peopl, supra, note 19, at 124.
22People v. Gutual, G.R. No. 115233, February 22, 1996, 254 SCRA 37, 49.