G.R. No.

169084 January 18, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MELANIO DEL CASTILLO y VARGAS, HERMOGENES DEL CASTILLO y VARGAS,
ARNOLD AVENGOZA y DOGOS, FELIX AVENGOZA y DOGOS, RICO DEL CASTILLO y
RAMOS, and JOVEN DEL CASTILLO y ABESOLA, Accused-Appellants​.

FACTS:
The accused are all related to one another either by affinity or by consanguinity. Melanio del
Castillo and Hermogenes del Castillo are brothers, Rico del Castillo and Joven del Castillo are
Melanio's son and nephew. Felix Avengoza is the son-in-law of Melanio and the brother of
Arnold Avengoza. Both Felix and Arnold lived in the house of Melanio. The City Prosecutor's
Office of Batangas City charged all the accused on March 28, 2000 in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 4, Batangas City with three counts of murder. On March 20, 2000, at about 9:00
pm, Perfinian (the witness) had just left the house of one Lemuel located in Sitio Bulihan,
Barangay Balete, Batangas City to walk to his own home located also in Bulihan when he heard
someone pleading: Huwag po, huwag po! He followed the direction of the voice, and saw the
assault by all the accused against Sabino D. Guinhawa, Graciano A. Delgado, and Victor B.
Noriega. He recognized each of the accused because he saw them from only six meters away...
and the moon was very bright. Besides, he was a godfather of Hermogenes' son, and the other
accused usually passed by his house. Perfinian recalled that the accused surrounded their
victims during the assault; that Arnold stabbed Graciano on the stomach with a bolo, causing
Graciano to fall to the ground; that Rico hacked Graciano with a bolo; that when Victor tried to
escape by running away, Hermogenes... and Felix pursued and caught up with him; that Felix
hacked Victor; and that when Sabino ran away, Melanio and Joven pursued him. PO3 Aguda
was on duty as the desk officer of the Batangas City Police Station in the morning of March 22,
2000 when he received the report about the dead bodies found in Bulihan.

During his investigation, he came upon one Rene Imbig (Rene) who mentioned seeing the six
accused wielding bolos and running on the night of March 21, 2000. From the site of the crime,
he and his fellow officers went to the houses of Melanio and Rico, which were about 20 meters
from where the bodies were found. The houses were abandoned, but he recovered a
blood-stained knife with a curved end in Melanio's house. Returning to the station, he saw
Hermogenes there, who informed him that the other suspects had fled to Sitio Tangisan,
Barangay Mayamot, Antipolo, Rizal, where Melanio's mother-in-law resided. Accompanied by
Rene and other police officers, he travelled to Sitio Tangisan. Upon arriving Rene pointed to
Melanio who was just stepping out of his mother-in-law's house. Melanio ran upon seeing their
approach, but they caught up with him and subdued him. They recovered a bolo from Melanio.
They found and arrested the other suspects in the house of Melanio's mother-in-law, and
brought all the arrested suspects back to Batangas City for investigation. The suspects admitted
disposing some of their clothes by throwing them into the Pasig River, and said that their other
clothes were in the house of Melanio. They mentioned that the bolo used by Hermogenes was
still in his house.
morning of March 23, 2000, PO3 Aguda and his fellow officers recovered two shorts, a shirt,
and a knife - all blood-stained from Melanio's house in Bulihan. Going next to the house of
Hermogenes, Winifreda del Castillo, the latter's wife, turned over the bolo of Hermogenes. They
learned that prior to the killings, Melanio had been fuming at being cheated in a cockfight, and
had uttered threats to kill at least three persons in Bulihan. On October 23, 2001, the RTC
convicted the accused of murder, but appreciated voluntary surrender as a mitigating
circumstance in favor of Hermogenes On April 28, 2005, the CA affirmed the convictions,
correcting only the awards of damages and the penalty imposed on Hermogenes

ISSUE:
(1)Whether Arnold and Joven be absolved of criminal liability because they acted in
self-defense and defense of strangers;
(2) Whether or not the conspiracy among them was not proven.

RULING:
1.) Arnold and Joven did not act in self-defense and in defense of strangers. By invoking
self-defense and defense of strangers, Arnold and Joven in effect admitted their parts in killing
the victims. The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused's
defense is self-defense he thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim, that it
becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the
court. The rationale for the shifting of the burden of evidence is that the accused, by his
admission, is to be held criminally liable unless he satisfactorily establishes the fact of
self-defense. But the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not thereby lifted from
the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the end of the proceedings. In other words, only
the onus probandi shifts to the accused, for self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be
established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof. He must now discharge the
burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of that of the
Prosecution, considering that the Prosecution's evidence, even if weak, cannot be disbelieved in
view of his admission of the killing. Arnold and Joven did not adequately prove unlawful
aggression; hence, neither self-defense nor defense of stranger was a viable defense for them.
We note that in addition to the eyewitness account of Perfinian directly incriminating them, their
own actuations immediately after the incident confirmed their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As
the CA cogently noted, their flight from the neighborhood where the crimes were committed,
their concealing of the weapons used in the commission of the crimes, their non-reporting of the
crimes to the police, and their failure to surrender themselves to the police authorities fully
warranted the RTC's rejection of their claim of self-defense and defense of stranger.

2.) The accused, armed with bolos, surrounded and attacked the victims, and pursued whoever
of the latter attempted to escape from their assault. Thereafter, the accused, except
Hermogenes, fled their homes and together hastily proceeded to Antipolo, Rizal. Their individual
and... collective acts prior to, during and following the attack on the victims reflected a common
objective of killing the latter. Thereby, all the accused, without exception, were co-conspirators.
In view of the foregoing, the Court rejects the pleas for exculpation of the other accused
grounded on their respective alibis considering that Arnold and Joven's admission of sole
responsibility for the killings did not eliminate their liability as co-conspirators.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on April 28, 2005, with the
following MODIFICATIONS, to wit: (a) the civil indemnity and moral damages are each
increased to ₱75,000.00; (b) temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 is granted, respectively, to the
heirs of Sabino and Graciano in lieu of actual damages; (c) instead of nominal damages,
temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Victor; and (d) ₱30,000.00 as
exemplary damages is given, respectively, to the heirs of Sabino, Graciano and Victor.

The accused shall pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 189981 March 9, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ALLAN GABRINO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:
On the 30th day of December, 1993 in the Municipality of La Paz, Province of Leyte, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill,
with treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and wound one JOSEPH BALANO with the use of bladed weapon locally known
as pisaw which said accused had purposely provided himself, thereby causing and inflicting
upon the said JOSEPH BALANO wounds on his body which caused his death shortly thereafter.
Two witnesses, Bartolome Custodio and Ismael Moreto, positively identified herein accused as
the assailant during the night Balano was stabbed. The appellant stated that he went outside of
the house to urinate when Tap-ing threw a stone at him, which hit him on the forehead and
caused him to fall down. And when he saw Balano rushing towards him with an ice pick, he
immediately stabbed him and then ran away. After trial, the RTC convicted the accused for the
murder of Balano. The CA affirmed the judgement of the RTC in toto.

ISSUE:
(1)Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of the crime of murder, despite the fact
that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt;
(2)Whether the killing was attended by treachery that would justify accused conviction of
murder;
(3)Whether or not evident premeditation is established as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING:
1.)We agree with the RTC’s factual determination as affirmed by the CA. In the present case, in
giving weight to the prosecution’s testimonies, there is not a slight indication that the RTC acted
with grave abuse of discretion, or that it overlooked any material fact. In fact, no allegation to
that effect ever came from the defense. There is, therefore, no reason to disturb the findings of
fact made by the RTC and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

2.)Treachery was committed by accused. In this case, the accused-appellant employed

treachery in stabbing and killing Balano, it is clear that accused deliberately hid behind the
coconut tree at nighttime, surprising the victim, Balano, by his swift attack and immediate
lunging at him. Obviously, the unsuspecting Balano did not have the opportunity to resist the
attack when accused-appellant, without warning, suddenly sprang out from behind the coconut
tree and stabbed him. This undoubtedly constitutes treachery. The fact that Balano was able to
run after he was stabbed by accused-appellant does not negate the fact the treachery was
committed.

3.)Evident premeditation was not established as an aggravating circumstance. In this case,

evident premeditation was not established. First, there is showing, much less an indication, that
accused-appellant had taken advantage of a sufficient time to carefully plan the killing of
Balano; or that a considerable time has lapsed enough for accused-appellant to reflect upon the
consequences of his act but nevertheless clung to his predetermined and well-crafted plan. The
prosecution was only able to establish the fact of accused-appellant’s sudden stabbing of
Balano after he hid behind the coconut tree. This fact only successfully establishes the
qualifying circumstance of treachery but not the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CEB CR-H.C. No. 00731
finding accused-appellant Allan Gabrino guilty of the crime charged is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. As modified, the ruling of the trial court should read as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused, Allan Gabrino, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of MURDER, this Court hereby sentences accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the late Joseph Balano the sum of PhP
50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages,
and interest on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of
judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 172606 November 23, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
MELANIO NUGAS y MAPAIT, Accused-Appellant​.
FACTS:
On March 26, 1997, at about 9:00 in the evening , Glen Remigio, his wife, Nila Remigio, and
their two young children, Raymond and Genevieve, were traveling on board their family vehicle,
a Tamaraw FX, along Marcos Highway in COGEO, Antipolo, Rizal. Glen was driving, while Nila
sat to his extreme right because their children sat between them. They picked up two
hitchhikers, named Nugas and Araneta, when they passed a village. Later, the hitch hikers
pointed knives at Glen and Nila’s necks demanding that they be brought to Sta. Lucia Mall.
Upon the vehicle reaching Kingsville Village, the man behind Glen suddenly stabbed Glen on
the neck. Thereafter, the two men alighted and fled. Despite undergoing treatment, Glen died
and his body was brought for autopsy which revealed that Glen had sustained a fatal stab
wound on the left side of his neck. It was opined that the position of the stab wound would
suggest that had the assailant used his left hand, he was probably directly behind the victim.
During trial, Nila identified Nugas as the person who had sat behind her husband and who had
stabbed her husband in the neck, and Araneta as the person who had sat behind her and who
had carried the maroon plastic bag that she had later recovered from the backseat.Admitting
having stabbed Glen, Nugas maintained that he did so in self-defense. He claimed that the
Tamaraw FX driven by Glen was a passenger taxi, not a family vehicle; that when he was about
to alight in front of Rempson Supermarket after arguing with Glen on the overcharged fees,
Glen punched him and leaned forward as if to get something from his clutch bag that was on the
dashboard; that thinking that Glen was reaching for a gun inside the clutch bag, he stabbed
Glen with his left hand from where he was seated in order to protect himself (Inunahan ko
nasya); and that when asked why he carried a knife, he replied that he needed the knife for
protection because he was living in a squatter’s area. The RTC found Nungas guilty of murder
beyond reasonable doubt and CA affirmed the decision of RTC

ISSUE:
(1)Whether the affirmance by the CA was proper;
(2)Whether the attendant circumstance of treachery was duly proven.

RULING:
1.)By pleading self-defense, an accused admits the killing, and thereby assumes the burden to
establish his plea of self-defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, his
conviction will follow from his admission of killing the victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably
appreciated when it is uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is
extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, the accused must discharge the burden of proof by relying
on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the State’s evidence, because the
existence of self-defense is a separate issue from the existence of the crime, and establishing
self-defense does not require or involve the negation of any of the elements of the offense itself.
The RTC found that Nugas did not establish the requisites of self-defense. The CA concurred.
The Court upholds both lower courts.
2.)The CA exhaustively discussed and rightly determined the presence of treachery as a
circumstance attendant in the killing of Glen and the improbability of Glen launching an attack
against or defending himself from Nugas by reason of their relative positions. We affirm the CA,
because there was nothing adduced by Nugas that refuted how the relative positions of Glen
and Nugas had left the former defenseless and unable to parry or to avoid the fatal blow of the
latter. Verily, Nugas stabbed Glen from behind with suddenness, thereby deliberately ensuring
the execution of the killing without any risk to himself from any defense that Glen might make.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision promulgated on March 8, 2006 finding MELANIO

NUGAS y MAPAIT guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

The accused shall pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 191913 March 21, 2012

SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:
On February 20, 2003, SPO2 Nacnac (accused-appellant), the SPO1 Espejo (victim) and a
number of other police officers were on duty. Nacnac, being the highest ranking officer during
the shift, was designated the officer-of-the-day. Shortly before 10:00 in the evening, Espejo,
together with then SPO1 Basilio, took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds. When Nacnac
saw this, he stopped the victim and his colleague from using the tricycle. Espejo told Nacnac
that he needed it to go to Laoag City to settle a previous disagreement with a security of a local
bar. Nacnac still refused. He told Espejo that he is needed at the station and, at any rate, he
should stay at the station because he was drunk. This was not received well by Espejo. He told
Nacnac in Ilocano: Iyot ni inam kapi (Coitus of your mother, cousin!). Espejo alighted from the
tricycle. SPO1 Eduardo Basilio did the same, went inside the office and left Nacnac and Espejo
alone. Espejo took a few steps and drew his .45 caliber gun which was tucked in a holster on
the right side of his chest. Nacnac then fired his M-16 armalite upward as a warning shot.
Undaunted, Espejo still drew his gun. Nacnac then shot the victim on the head, which caused
the Espejo’s instantaneous death. Nacnac later surrendered to the stations Chief of Police. The
RTC found Nacnac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. It held that the
claim of self-defense by Nacnac was unvailing due to the absence of unlawful aggression on the
part of Espejo. On appeal, CA affirmed the findings of RTC. It held that the essential and
primary element of unlawful aggression was lacking. It gave credence to the finding of the trial
court that no one else saw the victim drawing his weapon and pointing it at accused Nacnac.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner’s acts constitutes a valid self-defense.

RULING:
The facts surrounding the instant case must, however, be differentiated from current
jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. The victim here was a trained police officer. He was
inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful order in order to settle a score with someone using a
police vehicle. A warning shot fired by a fellow police officer, his superior, was left unheeded as
he reached for his own firearm and pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner was, therefore, justified in
defending himself from an inebriated and disobedient colleague. Even if We were to disbelieve
the claim that the victim pointed his firearm at petitioner, there would still be a finding of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. Hence, it now becomes reasonably certain that in this
specific case, it would have been fatal for the appellant to have waited for SPO1 Espejo to point
his gun before the appellant fires back. In the instant case, the lone wound inflicted on the victim
supports the argument that petitioner feared for his life and only shot the victim to defend
himself. The lone gunshot was a reasonable means chosen by petitioner in defending himself in
view of the proximity of the armed victim, his drunken state, disobedience of an unlawful order,
and failure to stand down despite a warning shot. All told, We are convinced that petitioner was
only defending himself on the night he shot his fellow police officer. The rule is that factual
findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies
are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule is binding except
where the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance
of weight and substance. As earlier pointed out, the trial court did not consider certain facts and
circumstances that materially affect the outcome of the instant case. We must, therefore, acquit
petitioner.

WHEREFORE, petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The CA Decision dated

July 20, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 30907 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner SPO2
Lolito T. Nacnac is ACQUITTED of homicide on reasonable doubt.

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is ordered to immediately RELEASE petitioner from
custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to INFORM this Court within
five (5) days from receipt of this Decision of the date petitioner was actually released from
confinement.

SO ORDERED.