G.R. No. L-46485. November 21, 1979
NORMAN LACSON, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision
of the Court of Appeals,[1]
promulgated on April 26, 1977, affirming the judgment or the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch VIII, in
Criminal Case No. 0429-V, entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Norman
Lacson” convicting the accused, petitioner herein, of the crime of
frustrated homicide penalized under Art. 249, in connection
with Art. 50 of the Revised Penal Code, but declaring him entitled to
the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense considering
that two of the three requisites mentioned in Art. 11, No. 1 of the Revised
Penal Code are present, namely, unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself and, taking into
consideration the provisions of Art. 13, No. 1 and Art.
69, both of the said Revised Penal Code, imposed upon him a straight penalty of
imprisonment of Four (4) Months of arresto mayor, and ordered the said accused
to indemnify the offended party, Jimmy Pitalio, in the amount of P500.00, and to pay the costs of the suit.[2]
The petitioner was
originally charged under two (2) informations.
In Criminal Case No. 0429-V,[3] he was accused of frustrated homicide for
having shot one Jimmy Pitalio on January 23, 1972 in the municipality of Valenzuela, province of Bulacan. The
petitioner was charged in Criminal Case No. 0430-V[4] with illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition for having in his
possession a Commanche Chief Caliber .22 Magnum revolver
which was not licensed in his name. This
was the same gun he used in shooting Jimmy Pitalio.
The two criminal cases
were tried jointly. Thereafter the trial
court rendered judgment acquitting the petitioner of the crime of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition in Criminal Case No. 0430-V and
convicting said petitioner of the crime of frustrated homicide in Criminal
Case No. 0429-V.[5]
The petitioner appealed
to the Court of Appeals assigning the following errors allegedly committed by
the trial court:[6]
“ASSIGNMENT
OF ERRORS
I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE OFFENDED PARTY WAS NOT
ARMED WHEN HE ATTACKED APPELLANT.
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE NECESSITY
OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING APPELLANT ON THE GROUND OF
LEGITIMATE SELF-DEFENSES.”
The Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment of the trial court in toto[7] and denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
of said decision in a resolution dated June 20, 1977.[8]
The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals committed the
following errors:[9]
“ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE UNWARRANTED
CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE OFFENDED PARTY WAS NOT ARMED WITH A
KNIFE WHEN HE ATTACKED THE PETITIONER.
II
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE UNWARRANTED
CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER TO PRESENT AS
WITNESSES HIS MAID, HIS HELPER AND HIS WIFE TO CORROBORATE HIS TESTIMONY
RENDERS THE DEFENSE VERSION UNWORTHY OF CREDENCE.
III
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT BECAUSE THE
OFFENDED PARTY WAS NOT ARMED WITH A KNIFE WHEN HE ATTACKED THE PETITIONER, THERE WAS NO REASONABLE NECESSITY FOR THE LATTER
TO USE HIS WIFE’S GUN TO DEFEND HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE.
IV
ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT PETITIONER CANNOT CLAIM
COMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE, RESPONDENT COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED IS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES ONLY AND NOT FRUSTRATED HOMECIDE.”
The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are:[10]
“Norman Lacson, Jimmy Pitalio, Carlos Tan and Enrique Masacote
were neighbors in General Tiburcio de Leon, Valenzuela, Bulacan. At about noon on January 23, 1972, Carlos Tan
invited Masacote and Pitalio to the birthday party of his son in their
house. While they were eating and
drinking in the yard, Tan told
Pitalio that the laborers of Lacson were leaving their work. Tan also
asked Pitalio to find out whether the latter could get the balance of his
unpaid wages from Lacson. Pitalio went
to Lacson’s residence, kicked open the gate of appellant’s residence, and forced his way inside the yard. Appellant and his wife had just arrived and
were alighting from their car when Pitalio, under the influence of liquor,
confronted Mrs. Lacson and asked her to produce their truck driver named Serafica,
saying: ‘Pag hindi mo siya hinarap sa
akin ay may mangyayari.’ Appellant remonstrated with Pitalio to abide by the law. This enraged
Pitalio who replied: ‘Ano ang batas, ito
ang batas!’ Taking the Magnum .22 caliber pistol of his wife from her handbag,
the appellant then fired it once at Pitalio’s chest.”
“Thereafter Mrs. Lacson brought Pitalio to the hospital. There Pitalio’s gunshot wound was treated and
operated on (Exhibit ‘A’). Pitalio’s confinement in the Jose R. Reyes Memorial Hospital lasted from January
23 to February 2, 1972. The medical
certificate issued unto him stated that his injury would incapacitate him for
more than thirty (30) days.”
In its analysis of the
evidence for the prosecution and for the defense, the trial court found that:[11]
“Jimmy Pitalio, on the witness stand, admitted that at the
time of the incident he had drunk beer in the house of Carlos Tan but denied
being drunk. The Court believes,
however, that at the time he was under the influence of liquor so much so that
although he knew that the balance of his salary which was a measly P1.00 in amount
was due to him from the driver, he pressed Mrs. Lacson for the non-payment and
as a matter of fact, according to him, he told Mrs. Lacson ‘Never mind, Mrs.
Lacson, alam kong ginigipit ninyo ako.’ Again, the fact that Jimmy Pitalio was
known as a person of bad character in the locality is shown by the
uncontradicted testimony of the accused who testified that Carlos Tan and
Masacote warned him about Jimmy Pitalio and, by the fact that Jimmy Pitalio was convicted of
serious physical injuries against his own uncle (Exhibit 4), and likewise by
the fact that he admitted having stoned the house of accused Norman Lacson
together with other companions.”
The petitioner invoked self-defense. His evidence is that Jimmy Pitalio attacked
him with a knife, and in order to prevent or repel the aggression he took the
gun of his wife from her handbag and shot at the offended party.
The trial court rejected petitioner’s theory of complete
self-defense. However, it ruled that
there was unlawful aggression on the part of the offended party, Jimmy
Pitalio, stating thus:[12]
“Considering, therefore, the fact that at the time of the
incident the offended party, Jimmy Pitalio, was drunk and considering his bad
character, the Court believes, therefore, that there was unlawful aggression on
the part of Jimmy Pitalio. It was Jimmy
Pitalio who provoked the incident by going in a drunken condition to the house
of the accused. The fact that Pitalio was
of a violent temperament, strong and aggressive, previously convicted of serious
physical injuries against his own uncle, plus the fact that he entered the residence
of the accused in this case, makes the Court conclude that there was unlawful
aggression on the part of the offended party in this case.”
The trial court held that there was no reasonable necessity of
the means employed to repel the unlawful aggression but found that there was
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused because:[13]
“That there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the accused in this case is very clear because it was Jimmy Pitalio who himself
provoked the incident by accusing the wife of the accused of depriving him of
his wages. The Court therefore finds
that although there was no reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel, the first requisite of unlawful aggression was present, as
well as the third requisite of lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.”
The main issue raised by the petitioner is whether or not he is entitled
to acquittal on the ground of complete self-defense. The trial court and the Court of Appeals
found the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the offended party and
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the petitioner. Both said courts, however, found the use of
the gun by the petitioner as an unreasonable means to repel the unlawful
aggression of the offended party, Jimmy Pitalio, apparently on the belief that
the latter did not have any weapon.
The petitioner testified
that the offended party was armed with a “kris-like” knife when he
confronted Mrs. Lacson and the accused.
The trial court found that when the petitioner remonstrated with Pitalio
to abide by the law, Pitalio was enraged and replied “Ano ang batas,
ito ang batas!” Implicit in this statement of Pitalio is that he was
referring to something as “ito ang batas.” This statement of
Pitalio tends to corroborate the testimony of the petitioner that the offended
party was armed with a “kris-like” knife. The trial court did not state to what
Pitalio, the offended party, referred when he said “x x x ito ang batas!”
before he was fired at by the petitioner.
The statement could not have simply referred to the fists of the
offended party. It is contrary to normal
human behavior for the petitioner to have taken the pistol of his wife from
her handbag and fired at Pitalio if Pitalio did not have any weapon at
all. The only logical conclusion is that
Pitalio had a knife when he said “Ano ang batas, ito ang batas!“. The phrase
“ito ang batas” could only have referred to a weapon.
In People vs.
Boholst-Caballero,[14] this Court said:
“In cases such as the one now before Us where there are
directly conflicting versions of the incident object of the accusation, the
Court in its search for the truth perforce has to look for some facts or
circumstances which can be used as valuable aids in evaluating the probability
or improbability of a testimony, for after all the element of probability is
always involved in weighing testimonial evidence, so much so that when a court
as a judicial fact-finder pronounces judgment that a set of facts constitute
the true happening it does so not of its own personal knowledge but as the
result of an evaluating process of the probability or improbability of a fact
sought to be proved.”
Considering the findings
of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Jimmy Pitalio, the offended
party, was drunk at the time he was shot; that Pitalio was known as a person of
bad character in the locality; that Pitalio had been convicted of serious
physical injuries committed against his own uncle; that on a previous
occasion, Pitalio admitted having stoned the house of petitioner, Norman Lacson; and the fact that Pitalio
had intruded into the residence of the accused, the use by the petitioner of a
gun as the only available weapon to repel the aggression cannot be considered
as an unreasonable means of defending himself and his wife from the offended
party.
This Court explained the meaning of reasonable means employed thus:
“That there is reasonable necessity of the means employed by herein appellant to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression cannot seriously be disputed. ‘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 as 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 xx xx.’ As WE stated in the case of
People vs. Lara, in emergencies of this kind, human nature does not act upon
processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of
self-preservation; and when it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted
upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and hold
the act irresponsible in law for the consequences.”[15]
In the instant case, there was an imminent danger to the lives of
the petitioner and of his wife from the unlawful attack of an enraged, drunken,
and armed Pitalio. The gun in the bag of
his wife, who was beside him, afforded the petitioner the only reasonable means
to ward off the attack.
The petitioner is entitled to acquittal on the ground of complete
self-defense. It is no longer necessary
to discuss the other errors assigned by him.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to
be reviewed is hereby set aside and the petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime
charged in the information in Criminal Case No. 0429-V of the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan, with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro,
and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., (Chairman), in
the result.
[1]
Annex “A”, Petition, Rollo, pp.
30-35.
[2]
Record of Criminal Case No. 0429-V, p. 132.
[3]
Ibid., p. 27.
[4]
Ibid., p. 124.
[5]
Ibid., pp. 131-132.
[6]
Rollo, p. 37; Brief for accused-appellant, pp. 1-2.
[7]
Ibid., pp.
39-46.
[8]
Ibid., p. 120, as stated in Respondent’s Brief, p. 3.
[9]
Ibid., pp. 79-80.
[10]
Decision, CA, pp. 1-2, Rollo, pp. 39-40.
[11]
Decision, CFI-Bulacan, pp. 7-8, Record of Criminal Case No. 0429-V, pp.
129-130.
[12]
Decision, CFI, p. 8; Ibid., p. 130.
[13]
Decision, CFI, pp. 8-9; Ibid., p. 131.
[14]
61 SCRA 180, 191.
[15]
People vs. Encomienda, 46 SCRA 522, 534-535.