Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 163 views

    People V Antonio G.R 229349

    Uploaded by

    Edwino Nudo Barbosa Jr.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    People V Antonio G.R 229349

    Uploaded by

    Edwino Nudo Barbosa Jr.
    163 views15 pages

    Original Title

    PEOPLE V ANTONIO G.R 229349

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    163 views15 pages

    People V Antonio G.R 229349

    Uploaded by

    Edwino Nudo Barbosa Jr.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 15
    Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Aanila THIRD DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GR. No, 229349 Praintff-Appellee, Present LEONEN, JL, Chairperson, versus: GESMUNDO, CARANDANG, ZALAMEDA, and GAERLAN, J. GREG ANTONIO Y PABLEO @ TOKMOL, Promulgated: "Abcused- Appellant: January 23, 2020 makin rea DECISION LEONEN, J: ‘An accused's invocation of a justifying circumstance frees the prosecution from the burden of proving that the accused committed the ‘offense charged. The burden shifts to the accused to prove the justifying circumstance with clear and convincing evidence. For this Cour’s resolution is an appeal from the Decision! of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction of Greg Antonio y Pableo @Tokmol (Antonio) for the erime of murder Before the Regional Trial Court, Antonio was charged in two (2) separate Informations for frustrated murder and murder, The accusatory portions ofthe two (2) Informations read: Ase eC Ragen lain Asie os ces Desition (fi, Case No, 06-246009 (Frustrated Murder “That on or about Augist 15, 2006, in the City of Mail Piilippines, dhe said accused, conspiring and confederaing together with ‘others whose tre names, resi ienitis and present whereaboos are sill Unknovmn and elpng one another, wih nin! to hill and with trentery land evident premeditation, dd then and thre vill, unlsfully nd felonousy aac, assault and use personal voles upon one ARSENIO. CCABILIG y MALINANA, by then and there stabbing the later wilt 3 ‘lade weapon at that Gc) back of hi body, thereby iflictng wpon sd ARSENIO CAHILIG y MALINANA injures which are necessarily ft fnd moral, dus performing all the acts of execution whieh would ave produced the crime of murder asa consequence, but nevertheless di not roduc it by reason o eases independent of the wil of the aid accused, that Is, by the Umely and able medical atendance rendered 16 sd [ARSENIO CAHILIG y MALINANA which saved his lif Contrary to aw" (Crim. Case No_06-246310 (Murder “That on or about August 15, 2006, in the City of Mail Philippines, the sid socaned, comspring and confedcatng together ith others whose true names, real Kentes and present wheteabouts st sill ‘unknown and helping one another di than an there willy, anlwflly land Teloniusly vith intent to kil, and with tsachery aad evident [ARTHURO® VILLALOBOS y BUASA, by then and there stabbing the lier ida Baded weapon on tho ferent pars of his body, thereby inflicting upon seid ARTHURO VILLALOBOS ¥ BUASA moral sab ‘wounds which were the direct nd immit cause of his death, Contrary 6 aw * ‘The cases were consolidated, and) Antonio pleaded not guilty 1 both charges. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued? ‘The prosecution presented David Fresado (Fresado), Ligaya Villatobos (Ligaya), Dr. Romeo T. Salen (Dr. Salen), and Police Inspector Ismael Dela Cruz as its wimesses.* From thei [Emerson Joeson (Joeson), and Arthuro Villalobos (Villalobos) GR.No. 22939" testimonies, the prosecution alleged that the murder was ‘committed in Tondo, Manila, on the early moming of August 13, 2006, ‘Around this time, Fresado had been drinking in front of a store with Dondon, 7 Decision a GR. No. 20949 By 2:00 aim, in the middle oftheir drinking session, a certain Lorna, approached them, trying to sella cellphone for P400.00. AC the sight of Loma, Villalobos got mad, claiming that she had supposedly sold him a fake cellphone before, In the argument that ensued, Loma and Villalobos started hitting each other. Fresado, together with some barangay members who arrived, tied to break up the fight. When Loma and Villalobos were pacified, they were told {ogo home. Lorna walked toward Delpan Bridge, as she lived underneath ie Moments later, a cousin of Villalobos, Peter, approached Fresado and ssked for help, saying he saw Villalobos following Loma to Delpan Bridge Fresado, Dondon, and Jocson ran toward the bridge where, upon reaching San Simon Street, they saw Arsenio Cablig (Cabilig) talking to Villalobos and convincing him to go home." However, while the two were talking, Antonio, Loma’s brother, suddenly sidled up beside them, placed his arm around Villalobos’ shoulders, and then stabbed him several times with @ footlong, knife.” Villalobos was able to break free from Antonio, but Lorna stepped in and repeatedly punched him. Her husband Rey joined in, hacking Villalobos" arm witha butcher's knit,” Jocson ran toward the barangay to ask for help. Meanwhile, Fresado ran back to the store, where he took his bag and met with his wife. They Went straight home. “The following day, Fresado's wife informed him that Villalobos had died. He attended Villalobos’ wake three (3) days later." Ligaya, Villalobos’ mother, testified that she spent around 170,000.00 for her son's embalming and burial expenses. However, she could not Present the receipts for her expenses? Dr, Salen, who conducted the postmortem examination, testified that Villalobos sustained five (5) stab wounds, with three (3) fatal stab wounds that piereed his lungs and heart. Dr. Salen also testified that Villalobos had injuries in his extremities which could have been caused by a fistfieht. Villalobos’ death certificate stated the cause of his death as “multiple stab ‘wounds of the body.” Desision 4 GR.No.229649 The defense, for its part, presented Antonio a its sole witness." Antonio testified that on August 15, 2006, at about 3:00 a.m., he was with Loma, buying bread at a bakery on Delpan Street, whe Villalobos was ing nearby with friends. Out of nowhere, Villalobos suddenly grabbed Toma's cellphone. Villalobos and his drinking companions then ganged up fon Lorna and beat her up. ‘When Antonio pleaded with the men to stop hurting his. sister, Villalobos turned on him instead, As his companions held Loma, Villalobos drew outa knife and lunged at Antonie. Antonio managed to evade this first. attack. ‘The second time Villalobos tried to stab him, Antonio was able t0 ‘wrestle the knife away and then use itt stab Villalobos several times, losing count of how many stabs he had inflicted on him. When Antonio fled the seene, he tried to look for his sister, but he could not find her." Antonio admitted killing Villalobos but claimed that he only di it to defend himself and his sister. Nonetheless, he denied killing Cabilig.” In a March 4, 2014 Decision," the Regional Trial Court acquitted Antonio ofthe charge of frustrated murder, but convicted him of murder. ‘The Regional Trial Court stated that Antonio's admission of self: defense shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. It then stressed that Antonio's testimony of self-defense was replete with inconsistencies, as his statements varied over who actually mauled his sister and who originally had the knife he eventually used to stab Villalobos, It likewise pave weight to Fresado’s eyewitness testimony that Villalobos did not expect to be stabbed by Antonio,” ‘The Regional Trial Court further appreciated both the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in the killing of Villalobos, qualifying Antonio's offense to murder.”” Meanwhile, in acquiting Antonio of frustrated murder, the Regional ‘Trial Court found Fresado’s testimony missing as to who had stabbed 16.4, The Och was poy Pg ae Mi M,N ff 28, Desision s GR. No. 229339 CCahilig. It pointed out that the prosscution filed to present any testimony 5 9 Cahilig's stabbing ‘The dispositive portion ofthe Regional Trial Court Decision read WHEREFORE, in Criminal Caso No. 06-246309, fo fie of, the prosecution to prove his ull forthe cime of Frasiated Murder, fccused GREG “ANTONIO 'y PABLEQ. @ TOKMOL ie betehy ACQUITTED. In Criminal Case No. 06.2463, the Cour finds accused GREG ANTONIO y PABLEO @ TOKMOL GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt (ofthe rime of Marder as defined and penalized under Ariel 288 of he Revised Penal Code, He is hereby sentenced to sutler the penalty of ‘reclusion perpetua Furthermore, accused i ordered 10 pay the bets of Aeveased Ahura Vilalobes the sum of P75,00000 as civil indemity, 50,000.00 as moral damages, nd P30,000.00 a exemplary damages SO ORDERED:* (Enplasis inthe orginal) Antonio filed a Notice of Appeal to which the Regional Trial Court agave due course. Antonio's appeal, however, was denied by the Court of Appeals in its February 18, 2016 Decision." ‘The Court of Appeals gave much weight to Fresado's eyewitness testimony over Antonio's self-serving and uncortoborated version of the facts?” It also found that treachery attended Villalobos” killing, elevating the offense to murder ?* Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the Regional Trial (Court that evident premeditation attended Villalobos" killing. Te found that the prosecution failed to present proof that there was an aetual plan to kill Villalobos.” ‘The dispositive portion ofthe Court of Appeals Decision rea: WHEREFORE, promises considered the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. 0 Neate, Watt, Desision 6 GR. No. 220649) ‘The 04 Marc 2014 Decision of Branch 25, Regional Tel Cour of Mania in Criminal Case No, 06-246310 is ereby AFFIRMED subject 0 te following MODIFICATIONS: (1) Accused-appllat Greg Antonio y Pablo is guilty beyond reasonable out for she crime’ of murder qualified by treachery an (2) The award of moral damages is inreased to Php 75,000. [No pronouncement ato costs SO ORDERED-® (Emphasis inthe origina) Antonio filed a Notice of Appeal.” The Court of Appeals, having sven due course” to the appeal, elevated the case records to this Court Accused-appellant and plaintif-appellee People of the Philippines ‘were directed to file their respective supplemental briefs, However, they each manifested" that they would instead be adopting the Briefs they had filed before the Court of Appeals In his Brief* accused-appellant insists that the Regional Trial Court cred in failing to appreciate in his favor the justifying eireumstances of self- defense and defense of a relative. He avers that he was able to prove that Villalobos and his cohorts were beating up his sister, without any provocation from her, prompting him to rush to her id and defend her.” ‘Adaitionally, accused-appellant maintains that the Regional Trial Court erred in appreciating treachery as an aggravating circumstance. He insists that Fresado’s testimony lacked sufficient detail to conclusively show ‘that the mode and manner of attack was adapted to render Villalobos defenseless. He also points out that the evidence failed to show that Villalobos was stabbed from behind, or that he was helpless when he was attacked" On the other hand, plaitiftappellee underscores in its Brief” that accused-appellant failed to prove all the requisites of self-defense and defense ofa relative.” Decision 7 G.R.No, 229349 Plaintffappellee also adds that the Regional Trial Court rightly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of treachery. It maintains that Fresado's testimony showed how the suddenness of the attack ensured the vietim’s killing: accused-appellaat surprised Villalobos when he grabbed his shoulders to prevent retaliation or defense, and thereafter repeatedly stabbing him.*! ‘The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court ‘of Appeals erred in finding accused-appellant Greg Antonio y Pableo @ Tokmol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murdet. Accused-appellant's defense centers on his claim of self-defense and defense of his sister, invoking the first and second justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code: ARTICLE 11, using Circumstances. — The following do ot Incurany eriinat lily 1. Anyone who acs in delense of is person ight, provided that he following cicunsanees conc Fest Unf aggression Second. Rewsonable necessity of the mauss empleyed to prevent o eel is Thin” Lack of suicent provocation on the part of he person defending imal. 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the peron or righ of his spouse ascendant, descendants, oF leptimate, nara or adopted bothers or sisters, or of his slaves by ally inthe sane depres, and those by ‘consanguinity within the four cui degre, povided tha the fist ad Second requiies prescribed in the next preceding cteumstance ae resent, and the further requis, in case the provoation was give bythe Detson tacked, tat the one maki defense had no pat tert, ‘An admission of self-defense or defense of a relative frees the prosecution from the burden of proving thatthe accused committed the act charged against him or her. The burden is shifted to the accused to prove ‘hat his or her act was justified: Tks sete that when an accused adit fhurming the vitim bt invokes seledfense to escape criminal ibility, the accused assumes the biden to ‘tablish his plea by credible, clear and eonvincing evidence, otherwise Decision 5 GR.No. 22969 ‘conviction would ftlow from his admission that he [harmed the victim Selfdefense cannot be justifiably appeeatod when uncoroberted by independent and competent evidence or when i extremely dou Bs ill. Indeed, in invoking sl-etense, the burden of evidence shied andthe accused claiming self-defense must rely onthe sent of his evidence and not on the weakness ofthe prosecution For the justifying circumstance of self-defense to be appreciated in the ‘accused's favor, the accused must prove the following: “(1) unlawful ‘gatession on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means ‘employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to solfdefense."® The justifying circumstance of defense of a roative likewise requires the frst two (2) requisites, but in lieu of the thied requirement, it requires that “in ‘ease the provocation was given by the person attacked, thatthe one making the defense had no part therein." The first requisite of unlawful aggression is defined as the actual or imminent threat to the person invoking se-defense.** This requirement is tn indispensable condition of both self-defense and defense of a relative: after al, if there is no unlawful aggression, the assailant would have nothing. to prevent or repel In People v. Caratao," this Court emphasized that i unlawful aggression isnot proven, “selfdefense will not have a leg to stand ‘on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even FM de other elements are present." As for the second requisite, “reasonable necessity of means employed {to prevent or repel such aggression” envisions a rational equivalence between the perceived danger and the means employed to repel the attack.” ‘This Cour in People v. Encomienda’” recognized that in circumstances that lead to self-defense or defense ofa relative, the instinct for self-preservation ‘will outweigh rational thinking.” Thus, “When itis apparent hata person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, itis the duty ofthe cours to sanction the act and hold the act irresponsible in law for the consequences.” Baio» Pap, 8 a. 706,79 G01 Pe J. ea, Ti Ono) ing Pes agen, 468 Pi 78 oo ae) (Pe 1. Asin Scen Dv snd Nea Pep Phi a3 00 (er. QasunbingTd Dest 16 79-720 eng Pepe Si. 4 Ml 398,605 2001 Pe J. Lao. Scant Dil Fee Plan 40 Pi 37387 (Pe usu, Scand Dis ae 1 Co f Ape Pi 32433 20 (her) usando. Daley ae 88 Pa 04, on (oe Cane THs De) ‘ape Cian 481 PL SE, 22000 [er Arc Ds. Vetoes eal, UT Pl 498, tes GO) fer Len Seed Dison) and Pe dr Ba 344 (0 fr Caan id Dn ‘STi or 1 aot cing People. Sie 48 Pa 169780) [Pt PF Divan] and Poe nfm 31 oo, 77 0) (Pr). Qumtine Seam Dive People Obra 31 Ph 81, 712 GOH) [er Ragunan, Fak Divs cing Pele ncomed (30-5 PLA, 33 (1972) fer) Malo, Pet 2 OR C7 er main, Doe MCAD ing People. cao, 48 P15 159192) er, Set Ba Desison ° Finally, the third requisite of lack of sufficient provocation requites the person invoking self-defense to not have antagonized the attacker.» This Court explained in People v. Nabora™ that a provocation is deemed sufficient if it is “adequate to excite the person to commit the wrong and ‘must accordingly be proportionate o its gravity.”"> A carelul review of the records convinees this Court that accused appellant failed to substantiate his claim of self-defense and defense of a relative Accused-appellant rests his entire defense on his sole and uneorroborated testimony. However, the Regional Trial Court found several Inconsistencies in his testimony as to who mauled his sister and who bel the Knife that he eventually used to stab Villalobos: Accused stated that Arturo Villalobos suddenly grabbed bis sister's ecphone and sari beating het. However, his statement varied 4350 who among the vetin and his companions had actually mauled Hs Sster and ay Io who among them were holding a sharp abject. The inconsistencies ae manifest in the following testimony ofthe aceused {ATTY. OLIVEROS} ‘When you saw that your sister was being mauled by Arturo aad his companion, what did you do? Told them wo stop tama na bu they suddenly grabbed something shar Sir ° Who among the 2 grabbed sharp object? Vitaobos st. ° Now aller yu stabbed Arturo, what happened to Arturo? a He just shouted aray and Iwas concerned of the pron nfont of tne ho was abou to sah me Si.” (ISN, December 4, 2013 ry ASST. CITY PROS, POSO} ° ola Pope 7 PLA 45 (2017) fer} Lene, Send Disa 2 BPR jc Mn Ba Decision 10 GR No. 220149 ‘Your sister was maby Arturo Villalobos ahs companions? Yes Sirthey were dking @ How many wore they who mauled your ster? only saw Arturo Villalobos Si. ASST, CITY PROS. POSO ‘You told the Cour awhile ago that 4 persons mauled your sister and now it was only Arto Villalobos who sled your sir ‘Which is which ow, which is comet, 4 persons mauled your sister or only Arturo Villalobos? A “There were 2 and the othe 2 were jus assisting beans they were all dnking Sit. Q ‘You are now changing your answer, only 2 mauled your sister? A Yes Sit @ So thot pers behind Ariro Villalbor was notable to inet Injury oar sister Lom cones yon na nga po binugbog sila noong tao sa liked Siz” (ISN, December 4, 2033, pp 11-14)" From this, the Regional Trial Court ruled that accused-appellant was Unable to prove the existence of unlawful aggression and, thus, could not validate his claim of self-defense: ‘The Court isnot persuaded by [the] alleged unlawful agresion| pespetaed bythe Victim, ce the mauling ofthe itr of the acted and the victim's atempe to stab him. The defense di mot present Loma, the sister of the accused, to corohorte the later’s testimony. The aecsed ven admit tat they didnot [file a complaint and tht Lor di not Submit herseifto any medial weatmeat In contrast with accused appellant's uncorroborated and inconsistent, testimony, the Regional Trial Court found Fresado’s testimony that accused- appellant attacked Villalobos without provocation to be more believable * ‘The Court of Appeals arrived atthe same conelusion, stating E cArata pens = lames f Decision " GRNo. 229340 Conary to accused-apellan’s asseverations, thre is ample ‘evidence on record to hold hig guy beyond reasonable doubt forthe rime of murder ‘The tenony ofthe lone eyewitness David Presado (David) is suMicient © prove accused-apelian’s complicity, His Swighforward aration of the subbing incient and. positive entieton ofthe accused appellant asthe assent ~ oth of which the defense fled to rebut earn the Cours imprimatr this After you saw Arturo Villalobos and Arsenio Cabilg taking with each ter, what wanspired pest? ‘Greg Antonio suddenly appeared atthe left side of Arthure and ‘Aneto Sie After you sw im suddenly appeared fie tthe let side of Arturo Villalobos, what happened nex? ‘A Inaktyan po 198, T sa him put his arms around the shoulders af Arthuro Villalobos then suddenly stabbed him Sie.” (Emphasis nthe coninal) ‘This Court sees no reason to reverse the factual findings ofthe lower courts. Afler all, when it comes to the credibility of witnesses, the tral court's findings and its calibration of thet testimonies’ probative weight are seconded high respect and even finality. The trial court's unique vantage Point allows it to observe the witnesses during tral, putting it in the best Position to determine whether a witness is telling the truth. In People v. Cirbeto," this Court underscored that an appellate court ‘can only overturn the tril courts factual findings and replace it with its own factual findings if “there is a showing that the [rial court} averlooked facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result ofthe case." This rule “finds an even mote stringent application where the Findings ofthe [tral court] are sustained by the {Court af Appeals." Accused-appellant was charged with mutder, which is defined and penalized under Article 248 ofthe Revised Penal Code: ARTICLE248, Murder. — Any person who, not fling within the provisions of Atle 246, shall Kl another, sal be gully of murder and ‘hal be punished by reluion pepe to deh if commated with any the following atendant circumstances Sap cian, GR e318, Febmary 2,008 tery jay ou phhlssbycW7 (Per eens, Sa _ at rH Decision 2 GR. No, 229349 1. With geachery, aking advange of superior sone, with te aid of ame men, oF employing means to weaken the defense, for of means or parsons reo aon munity In consideration of rice, reward, oF promise By means of inundation, fe, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding ofa vessel, derailment or assault upon 2 aloo, fll (ofan ashi, by means of motor vetiles, or withthe use of fay other means involving rea waste andr, 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerted in the preceding portraph, of of an earthquake, esuptinn of Nolean, destuetive cyclone, epidemic. or any ther pubic ‘ala ‘With evident premeditation, ‘With erucly. by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the sulring ofthe vehi, o outraging or seofing this peson or comes ‘The Regional Trial Court found that Villalobos’ killing. was attended by treachery and evident premeditation, thereby qualifying it to murdet** For its part, the Court of Appeals only appreciated treachery, ruling that there was a want of evidence for evident premeditation. ‘The Court of Appeals is correct. Only treachery is present here. ‘Treachery iy defined as “the swift and unexpected attack on the ‘unarmed vietim without the slightest provocation on his for her] part." To substantiate its allegation of treachery, the prosecution must prove: “(I) that atthe time ofthe attack, the vitim was not in a position to defend himself, ‘and (2) thatthe offender consciously adopted the particular means, method ‘or form of attack employed by him." Here, both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found that treachery attended accused-appellant’s attack on Villalobos. The Court ‘of Appeals held Clearly, weachery in this case is evident frm the fact that: acused ‘ppllam grabbed the victim's wm by suprise and. simultncously sahbing him wit a fooviong life despite being unarmed. To the Cou, these are methods employed which endeted Arthur helpless sitet him vith no opportunity to defend himself or even to reality

    You might also like