PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HELLODORO M. VALDESCO ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
INTING, J.:
“WHEREFORE, Judgment is issued finding accused Hellodoro Valdesco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE as defined by Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code with incomplete defense of relatives and imposes upon him an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years to Eight (8) years and to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity; Moral damages of P75,000.00 and actual damages of P25,000.00 which needs no proof other than the victim’s death.
He shall serve his penalty in the national penitentiary of Davao penal colony.
SO ORDERED.”
Accused Hellodoro Valdesco’s conviction stemmed from an Information dated March 9, 2005[2] which partly reads:
“That on or about 5:00 o’clock, more or less, in the afternoon of August 8, 2004 particularly at Purok 4, Mailag, Valencia City, Bukidnon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill with the use of a 1×2 piece of wood, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally strike BIENVENIDO SAUSAL, hitting his left head, which eventually caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of BIENVENIDO SAUSAL in such amount as may be allowed by law.”
On the February 6, 2006 arraignment, accused Hellodoro, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.[3]
Hellodoro is presently out on bail.[4]
The facts of the case are as follows:
The prosecution presented Reynaldo Rama, Jocelyn Labaon and Emelita Ipanag to recount the events that occurred on the fateful afternoon of August 8, 2004. On that date, at about 4:00 to 4:30 p.m., Reynaldo was tending his store when he heard a commotion outside, just beside the road. He went out to check the commotion. At about 8 to 9 meters away from where he stood, he saw Hellodoro and herein victim Bienvenido Sausal (Bienvenido) fighting with Hellodoro hitting Bienvenido’s head on the left side with a wood about a meter long. Bienvenido staggered while walking away from Hellodoro. The incident happened about 3 to 4 meters away from Hellodoro’s house.[5]
Meanwhile, Jocelyn was vending barbecue on the side of the road when the incident occurred. She testified that Bienvenido was only walking when Hellodoro followed him from behind and hit him (Bienvenido) on the head with a piece of wood. She added that she did not see Bienvenido grab a girl by the hair; and maintained that the victim was walking alone at that time. Bienvenido purportedly fell after the blow. Jocelyn also recalled that she already heard a thudding sound inside Hellodoro’s house before Hellodoro and Bienvenido went outside but she could not see what was going on inside the house.[6]
Emelita, the mother of Bienvenido, was only informed of the fateful incident involving her son by one Antonio Alvarez. She immediately went to the area where her son was allegedly mauled by Hellodoro. On the way, she met a kid who told her that her son was already at Sajulga’s house where he was being treated. Emelita went to Sajulga’s house and saw Bienvenido with a bleeding nose. When she asked him who were responsible for his injuries, Bienvenido told her that it was Hellodoro, his sister and his son. She then took Bienvenido home to rest. The next day, at about 10:00 a.m., Emelita brought Bienvenido to a clinic for treatment but the doctor refused after he saw him with a head injury. Emelita then transferred her son to Laviña Hospital where the medical staff attended to him. At about 4:00 in the morning, Bienvenido’s condition worsened. The doctors advised them to bring him to Cagayan de Oro City. At about 9:00 a.m., they brought Bienvenido to Cagayan de Oro Medical Center. Unfortunately, the doctors told Emelita that they could not do anything about Bienvenido’s situation; and that it would be useless to operate on him. Bienvenido eventually died on August 11, 2004. When Bienvenido was embalmed, Emelita noticed bruises on his body. During the wake, a representative from Hellodoro allegedly visited Emelita and offered a settlement.[7]
Dr. John Varias, the doctor who issued Bienvenido’s death certificate was also presented. Per death certificate, Bienvenido died due to multiple head injuries secondary to alleged mauling incident.[8] Nevertheless, the doctor admitted that he did not personally attend to Bienvenido and that the information written on the certificate was only based on what was relayed to him six (6) days after the victim’s death. He made the certificate only for burial purposes.[9]
A deposition was taken on Dr. John Mata, the physician who attended to Bienvenido at the Cagayan de Oro Medical Center. He attested that Bienvenido was already unconscious when he was treated of his severe injuries. His brain was no longer functioning because of a severe head blunt trauma caused by a hard object.[10]
On the other hand, accused Hellodoro maintains that on August 8, 2004, he attended the Parents Teachers Association induction wherein he was elected as president. At about 5:00 p.m., he went home only to find his sister Lilia Valdesco in the living room grappling with Bienvenido, who was pulling Lilia by the hair. Hellodoro asked Bienvenido of the commotion. But instead of answering, Bienvenido got hold of a bolo from a pail placed beside the door and tried to hack Hellodoro. However, Hellodoro was able to parry the blow causing the bolo to slip from Bienvenido’s grip. Still, it hit Hellodoro on his nose bridge and right arm. Bienvenido then punched Hellodoro on his right eye and pushed him against the wall. Bienvenido grabbed Lilia again by her hair and dragged her outside the house. Hellodoro then took a one (1) meter piece of wood (a 1×2 wood used as an inner lock in their house), followed Bienvenido outside the house, and hit him on the head. It was only then that Bienvenido freed Lilia and walked towards Sajulga’s house. By that time, Perlita Valdesco (Hellodoro’s wife) arrived. Upon seeing the commotion, Perlita asked for help. The next day, Hellodoro went to the police station and reported the incident. He also had a medical check-up.[11] Per medical certificate dated August 9, 2004, Hellodoro was found to have a hematoma on the peri-orbital area, right eye horizontal, and an abrasion on his nasal bridge.[12]
Hellodoro explained that he opted to use the wood instead of the bolo; and that he hit Bienvenido only once because he had no intention to kill him but only for him to let go of Lilia.[13]
The defense also presented Perlita to corroborate her husband’s defense. Perlita averred that she and her husband attended the PTA induction and went home about 5:00 p.m. But she told her husband to go home ahead as she had to tend to her carabao first. When she was on her way home, she heard shouts coming from their house and saw Bienvenido pulling Lilia by the hair and dragging her outside the house. Perlita called for help. She then saw her bleeding husband hit Bienvenido on the left side of the head with a piece of wood. After which, Bienvenido let go of Lilia and walked to Sajulga’s house threatening to get back at Hellodoro.
Helldoro’s neighbor, Florentino Saren also testified and deposed that on August 8, 2004 at around 4:00 p.m., he was at his house when Bienvenido, who was drunk and carrying a more than half-full Tanduay long-neck bottle, came by looking for Florentino’s son whom he wanted to invite to a drinking spree. At that time, Florentino’s son was asleep so that Florentino told Bienvenido to just go home and sleep instead. However, Bienvenido said that he would just go to Lilia’s house, adding that that woman is tough and that he will see what she would do now.[14]
The court a quo rendered the assailed amended decision finding that the accused had the deliberate intent to kill by hitting the victim with a piece of wood that caused the latter’s death; that as between the testimonies of the defense witnesses which include that of the accused’s wife, and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were disinterested persons, the court a quo was inclined to believe the latter; that the testimony of the accused was only corroborated by his wife; and that contrary to their claims that the victim was hit only once, the medical certificate stated that the victim died of multiple head injuries. The court a quo further ruled that the accused is entitled only to the priveleged mitigating circumstance, an incomplete defense of relative; that although the provocation was started by the victim, there was no showing that he endangered Lilia’s life or that he used a weapon; that the means used by the accused was not reasonable; and that such act cannot be considered a defense because of the multiple injuries sustained by the victim as a result of the fatal blows made by the accused on him.
Hence, this appeal assigning the following errors, to wit:
I.
THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED HAD NO INTENT TO KILL BIENVENIDO SAUSAL;
II.
THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT MULTIPLE HEAD INJURIES WAS THE CAUSE OF DEATH OF BIENVENIDO SAUSAL; AND
III.
THE HONORABLE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING INCOMPLETE DEFENSE OF RELATIVE BY THE ACCUSED.
Our Ruling
We affirm the conviction but with slight modification.
In the case at bench, the accused-appellant admits hitting Bienvenido on the head using a piece of wood. As clearly established, Bienvenido died because of severe head blunt trauma resulting from a blow to his head caused by a hard object.[15] Apparently, the blow inflicted by the accused-appellant on the victim resulted in the latter’s untimely death after a few days. Nevertheless, accused-appellant contends that he was just acting in defense of his sister, who was allegedly grabbed by the hair by Bienvenido and dragged outside the house.
The Revised Penal Code, Article 11, provides:
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.”
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 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. (italics for emphasis)
In cases where the accused has admitted the killing, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the justifying circumstances to the satisfaction of the court in order to be relieved of any criminal liability.[16] Like in self-defense, the burden is on the accused to show that he is legally justified in killing the victim or inflicting injury to him. The defense must be established by clear and convincing evidence and when successful, the otherwise felonious deed would be excused, mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent of the accused.[17]
Anyone who admits the killing of a person but invokes the defense of relative to justify the same has the burden of proving these elements by clear and convincing evidence. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if the prosecution’s evidence is weak it cannot be disbelieved if the accused has admitted the killing.[18] In order that defense of a relative may be appreciated, the following requisites must concur: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense took no part therein.[19] In the event that not all of the aforementioned requisites are attendant, the accused shall be entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.[20]
However, the element of unlawful aggression is indispensable for a defense of a relative to prosper. Of the three (3) requisites of defense of relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, for without it any defense is not possible or justified. It is thus important for Us to determine first and foremost, if there was unlawful aggression by Bienvenido before the accused-appellant’s defense of relative can prosper. In order to consider that an unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made.[21] Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or an imminent danger of such attack. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not enough. The victim must attack with actual physical force or with a weapon.[22] Further, it is not enough that there was an attack, the unlawful aggression must have been present when the defense is made against the victim. In short, the defense must be against a present unlawful attack.[23]
In the case before Us, it was established that a commotion already occurred between the accused-appellant and Bienvenido while they were still inside the former’s house. However, it is worthy to note that the hitting of the victim by the accused-appellant happened about 3 to 4 meters away from the accused-appellant’s house where the altercation supposedly started. Accordingly, what is crucial is that Bienvenido’s unlawful aggression should have been present at the time he was hit on his head. It is true that Bienvenido’s pulling of the accused-appellant’s sister’s hair is an offensive act which could have caused injury to the latter and could be considered as an unlawful aggression; but other than the accused-appellant’s self-serving testimony of the attack, nothing else was adduced to corroborate it except the testimony of his wife which is susceptible to bias considering their marital relationship. The other witnesses present during the incident did not recall Bienvenido pulling anybody’s hair but instead deposed that the victim was alone at the time he was struck on his head by the accused-appellant. It is unlikely for someone only about 8 to 9 meters away, to miss an unusual site of someone dragging somebody by the hair. The witnesses could not have missed such incident. The witnesses did not even mention Lilia’s presence during the commotion. There was no indication that the prosecution witnesses were moved by ill-motives to falsify their testimonies. Based on the witness’s recount of events, Bienvenido was walking alone beside the road when the accused-appellant made the blow. The accused-appellant could have presented other disinterested witnesses, like his neighbors, to prove that at the time he hit the victim, the latter was actually grabbing Lilia by the hair considering that according to the accused-appellant, there were already several people gathered around the premises when the commotion outside their house occurred. But he failed to do so. That would have established the indispensable element of unlawful aggression to warrant the defense of a relative. Consequently, We find that the accused-appellant failed to prove that there was unlawful aggression by Bienvenido at the time the latter was hit on his head with a piece of wood. Granting that there was unlawful aggression inside the accused-appellant’s house, it is of no moment as what is vital is that the unlawful aggression should be present at the time the accused-appellant hit the victim for once the aggression ceases, the attack on the unlawful aggressor could no longer be considered as a justifiable defense. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Senoja v. People,[24]
“Hence, when an inceptual/unlawful aggression ceases to exist, the one making a defense has no right to kill or injure the former aggressor. After the danger has passed, one is not justified in following up his adversary to take his life. The conflict for blood should be avoided if possible. An assault on his person, he cannot punish when the danger or peril is over. When the danger is over, the right of self-defense ceases. His right is defense, not retribution.”
Considering that the accused-appellant fell short in proving that there was peril caused by Bienvenido on the former’s sister at the time of the fateful incident, unlawful aggression was not sufficiently established and the defense of a relative has no leg to stand on.
We also find that the accused-appellant’s act of hitting the victim on the head, albeit only once, still indicates intent to kill.
An essential element of homicide, whether in its consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offender to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.[25] If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed.[26]
Since death resulted from the felonious act of herein accused-appellant, a presumption exists that he intended to kill Bienvenido and it is up to him to convince this Court to overcome such presumption. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, of the means used by the malefactors; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed; and the motive of the accused.[27]
In the instant case, there was no sufficient evidence to show that Bienvenido suffered multiple head injuries. On this point, We agree with the accused-appellant. What was shown was that Bienvenido suffered severe injuries resulting from a contact of a hard object on his head. We cannot give credence to the cause of death per Bienvenido’s death certificate stating that the deceased suffered multiple head injuries as the City Health Officer, who issued it, admitted that he had no personal knowledge as to what really happened to the deceased and that he merely filled up the certificate according to what was told to him for burial purposes. Further, although the witnesses’ testimonies stated that the accused-appellant hit Bienvenido on the head, they made no mention that the blow was made several times before the victim staggered and walked away to Sajulga’s house. Even if the witnesses professed their opinion that Bienvenido might have been mauled and hit several times while still inside the accused-appellant’s house because of the thudding sounds heard therein, such testimony remains uncorroborated as nobody actually saw such event. In fact, the accused-appellant also suffered injuries from the incident that occurred inside his house. Thus, there was inadequate proof to show that Bienvenido was repeatedly hit on his head by the accused-appellant.
However, the number of wounds inflicted is not the sole consideration in proving intent to kill.[28] Considering that the single blow to Bienvenido’s head caused his death, the attack was, therefore, fatal and is indicative of the accused-appellant’s intent to kill. In the case of People v. Arcillas,[29] the Supreme Court has resolved:
“What is at issue here is whether there was on appellant’s part the intent to kill when he inflicted the injuries on his aunt. If so, he should be punished for the appropriate offense which is included in the charge of rape with frustrated homicide, and duly proved. Intent to kill must be evidenced by an act, which at the time of its execution is unmistakably calculated to produce the victim’s death by adequate means. In this case, the intent to kill cannot be doubted. Appellant armed himself with a heavy wooden club and aimed his blow at the victim’s head. The blow hit her in the head, and she lost consciousness. But for unexplained reasons she regained consciousness after her assailant had fled.” (Emphasis ours)
Accordingly, a blow aimed at the victim’s head, whether it caused the latter’s death or not, shows intention to kill. It is also difficult to sustain the accused-appellant’s contention that if he intended to kill Bienvenido he would have used the bolo and not the piece of wood because it was not established that there was indeed a bolo allegedly used by Bienvenido on the accused-appellant.
All told, We sustain the accused-appellant’s guilt but modifies his sentence[30] on account of his failure to convincingly prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim thereby refuting his defense that he acted in defense of a relative. Consequently, neither can incomplete defense of relative be sustained. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides that any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246,[31] shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
The damages awarded are sustained but the award of actual damages is deleted as no receipts were proffered to support them. Nonetheless, temperate damages of the same amount may appropriately be awarded in lieu of the actual damages. Temperate damages should instead be given since it was to be expected that there were burial and funeral services although the amount thereof was not determined with certitude.[32]
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The March 8, 2011 Amended Decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 8, Valencia City, Bukidnon in Criminal Case No. 15019-05 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The accused-appellant Hellodoro Valdesco is found GUILTY of Homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accused-appellant is also ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED.
Camello (Chairperson) and Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 53-75.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Records, p. 31.
[4] Rollo, p. 2.
[5] TSN, January 22, 2007.
[6] TSN, January 29, 2007.
[7] TSN, March 15, 2007.
[8] Records, p. 11.
[9] TSN, May 28, 2007.
[10] TSN, October 26, 2007.
[11] TSN, September 6, 2010.
[12] Records, p. 16.
[13] TSN, February 3, 2011.
[14] TSN, April 8, 2010.
[15] TSN, Records, p.89.
[16] People v. Amamampang, G.R. No. 108491, July 2, 1998.
[17] Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011.
[18] People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 121682, April 12, 2000.
[19] People v. Dano, G.R. No. 117690, September 1, 2000.
[20] People v. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996.
[21] Balunueco v. CA, G.R. No. 126968, April 9, 2003.
[22] Supra.
[23] Senoja v. People, G.R. No. 160341, October 19, 2004.
[24] Supra.
[25] Mahawan v. People, G.R. No. 176609, December 18, 2008.
[26] People v.Castillo, G.R. No. 172695, June 29, 2007.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Supra.
[29] G.R. No. 126817, December 27, 2000.
[30] G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012.
[31] Murder.
[32] España v. People, G.R. No. 163351, June 21, 2005.