THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VIRGILIO NACUSPAG, PABLO NACUSPAG, ERNESTO SARADOLLA AND ARISTEDES SALAZAR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Nacuspag

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted four men for the killing of Iniego Nala at a wedding celebration in Madalag, Aklan. Three of the accused withdrew their appeals, leaving only Pablo Nacuspag, who had been convicted as principal of murder and who alone came before the Supreme Court claiming self-defense. The case matters for the Bar candidate because it is a clean illustration of two settled rules: that self-defense is an affirmative allegation that the accused must prove by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence, and that the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal absent proof of misapprehension of evidence.

Procedural History

An information for murder was filed against Virgilio Nacuspag, Pablo Nacuspag, Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar. After trial, the trial court found Pablo Nacuspag guilty as principal of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, while the other three were found guilty as accomplices and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. All four accused originally appealed. Virgilio Nacuspag, Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar later withdrew their appeals, which the Supreme Court granted, leaving only the appeal of Pablo Nacuspag. The case reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal from the judgment of conviction.

Facts

On the night of September 7, 1966, Teodoro Nala held a reunion and celebration at his house in barrio Cabangahan, Madalag, Aklan, in honor of his son and his son's bride. Among the invited guests were Dioscoro Nala and his son Iniego Nala, who helped prepare the food. The accused Virgilio Nacuspag, Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar, together with companions, arrived uninvited, and all of them carried knives called siyaw whose handles protruded from their pockets.

After supper and dancing, Iniego Nala went up the house holding a banjo, with a bolo in its scabbard tucked at his back. Scarcely had he taken two steps from the stairs when, without warning or provocation, Virgilio Nacuspag gave him a fist blow on the right jaw, followed by Pablo Nacuspag with a fist blow on the left side. Aristedes Salazar then squeezed Iniego's neck from behind with his arm, and in that position Pablo Nacuspag stabbed him on the left side below the nipple. Iniego fell on the floor and died.

When Dioscoro Nala protested, he was pushed outside and beaten. He later reported the stabbing to the chief of police. The next day, Dr. Eugenio Rondario conducted an autopsy and found a punctured wound traversing the pleura, left lung and apex of the heart, and testified that a sharp-pointed instrument known as a siyaw could have caused it. Pablo Nacuspag admitted stabbing the victim but claimed self-defense, saying he had wrested a knife from the elderly Dioscoro and was then pursued and attacked by Iniego with a bolo before he thrust his knife.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused Pablo Nacuspag proved unlawful aggression and the other requisites of self-defense by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight to the prosecution's version and in finding the testimony of its witnesses credible.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule on self-defense as a justifying circumstance under the Revised Penal Code, which requires unlawful aggression as its first element. The Court states the governing principle thus:

It is well-settled that self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.

This rule places the burden on the accused who admits the killing to establish the justification to the satisfaction of the court.

The Court also applies the settled rule on the review of factual findings:

Clearly, the focal issue presented here revolves around the credibility of witnesses, i.e., whether or not the trial court was correct in giving weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. And the well-established rule on this point is that the factual conclusion reached by the trial court, which had the opportunity more than the reviewing tribunal to observe and gauge the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while testifying and to properly appreciate the same, is not to be disturbed, unless there is proof of misapprehension of evidence.

This governs the second issue, since the appellant attacks the trial court's assessment of credibility.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appellant failed to show unlawful aggression, the first requisite of self-defense. It found his version incredible: it was hard to believe that Dioscoro Nala, past sixty and much weaker, could corner and attack a man in his prime; there was no reason for the appellant to retreat to the kitchen after he and his brother were already free of the supposed aggression; and it was improbable that, having sought cover behind a post, he could have made a swift knife thrust that mortally wounded the victim. The Court stressed that having admitted the killing, the appellant had to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's, for even if that were weak it could not be disbelieved after the admission.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. The prosecution eyewitnesses positively and steadfastly maintained their account and came out unscathed from thorough cross-examination. The contradictions pointed out referred merely to minor details. The Court also held that the relationship of a witness to the victim does not necessarily vitiate his otherwise credible testimony, and that absent proof of misapprehension of evidence, the trial court's factual conclusions deserve acceptance.

Doctrine

Self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. Unlawful aggression is its first requisite, and where the accused admits the killing, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's. The factual conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, which had the opportunity to observe their demeanor, is not to be disturbed on appeal unless there is proof of misapprehension of evidence. The relationship of a prosecution witness to the victim does not by itself impair the credibility of his positive and clear testimony.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in full, with costs against the appellant Pablo Nacuspag.

Remember This

Memorize the line that self-defense must be proven by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof when the accused admits the killing and invokes self-defense, and to test the rule that the trial court's findings on credibility are binding absent misapprehension of evidence.