PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO NELL ALIAS “OMENG”, DANNY ANGELES ALIAS “DANNY FAKE” AND JOHN DOE, ACCUSED, ROMEO NELL ALIAS “OMENG,” APPELLANT.

People versus Nell

The Case

This is People versus Nell, a criminal appeal in which the appellant, Romeo Nell, was charged with murder for the fatal stabbing of Reynaldo Laureano on the night of March 24, 1990 in Valenzuela. Nell admitted the killing but invoked self-defense, and the case matters because it gathers in one decision the two burdens every student must master: the burden an accused assumes once he admits the act, and the burden the prosecution never sheds — to prove every qualifying circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. It is a compact lesson in how a conviction for murder can be reduced to homicide when the qualifying circumstances fail.

Procedural History

Nell was charged with murder in an information filed in June 1990 before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 172, together with Danny Angeles and one John Doe. Only Nell was arrested; the other two remained at large. On arraignment in May 1992 he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision in December 1992, convicting him of murder as principal, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Reynaldo Laureano in the sum of 50,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. Nell appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's classification of the crime as murder instead of homicide and its refusal to acquit him on self-defense.

Facts

On the evening of March 24, 1990, the victim Reynaldo Laureano was sitting in front of a closed store on Abalos Street in Valenzuela. According to the prosecution witness Rosini Cenon, she saw Romeo Nell, accompanied by Danny Angeles, stab Reynaldo with a bladed instrument. Reynaldo ran, Nell chased him, and liquor drinkers threw bottles at Nell, hitting his nape. Angeles then pulled Reynaldo into a canal, and Nell stabbed him in the chest, twisting the blade inside the body. The victim's brother Benjamin Laureano gave a somewhat different account: he saw Nell and Reynaldo quarrel and struggle earlier, Nell ran away, Reynaldo chased him, and later Nell returned and chased Reynaldo with a bladed weapon, stabbed him once in the chest, and fled. The autopsy showed an eleven-inch stab wound below the right collarbone that penetrated the heart, plus two puncture wounds on the chest.

Nell's defense was self-defense. He testified that earlier that afternoon Reynaldo demanded beer money from him and boxed him, and that he ran because Benjamin had a knife. About four hours later, while plying his tricycle, he was blocked by Reynaldo, Benjamin, and a certain Junior, who again demanded money. Junior hit him on the head with a bottle, his vision dimmed, and he stabbed Reynaldo with a screwdriver he kept as a tool. He admitted fleeing the scene and never reporting the incident to the police.

The trial court rejected self-defense, preferring Benjamin's testimony because he gave his statement to the police within hours of the stabbing, while Rosini's statement came two days later, after her brother-in-law Junior was implicated. The trial court also found evident premeditation from the fact that Nell returned to the scene four hours after the first quarrel.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting the appellant on the ground of self-defense under paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in categorizing the crime committed as murder instead of homicide.

Applicable Provisions

Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as invoked by the appellant, provides:

Are exempt from criminal liability the following: 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.

These three requisites are the measure of the appellant's defense, and his failure to prove them defeats the plea.

Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, on treachery, provides:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The Court used this definition to test whether the killing was qualified, and found the record wanting.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, on homicide, provides:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, 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.

This is the provision under which the appellant was ultimately convicted, the qualifying circumstances having failed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that self-defense was not proven. By admitting the killing, the appellant shifted the burden to himself and had to establish all the requisites clearly and convincingly, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's. Unlawful aggression was absent: the extortion of beer money did not place his life in peril, and even if Benjamin held a knife, the appellant never said Benjamin threatened him with it. Reasonable necessity of the means was likewise absent, since the appellant was armed while his alleged assailants were not competently shown to be armed. The Court also noted five points against his credibility, including that a screwdriver did not fit the medico-legal description of the weapons, that he attacked the unarmed victim rather than Junior who struck him, and that he fled the scene.

On the second issue, however, the Court held that the trial court erred in appreciating evident premeditation from the mere fact that the appellant returned four hours later. Evident premeditation requires a previous decision to commit the crime, overt acts showing adherence to that determination, and a sufficient lapse of time to reflect. The Court held:

Mere lapse of time is not equivalent to evident premeditation.

Treachery was also not proven, because Benjamin admitted that the victim and the appellant struggled first, so the victim was not without a chance to defend himself. Abuse of superior strength was not shown either, since superiority in numbers alone does not suffice; there must be deliberate employment of excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.

Doctrine

First, when an accused admits the killing and pleads self-defense, he assumes the burden of proving all its requisites by clear and convincing evidence, and he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's. Second, unlawful aggression means an assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, that places the accused's life in actual peril; it cannot be a mere imagined threat or intimidating attitude. Third, evident premeditation requires proof of a previous decision to kill, overt acts of adherence to that plan, and sufficient time to reflect; mere lapse of time is not enough. Fourth, treachery requires means that insure the killing without risk to the offender from the defense the victim might make, and abuse of superior strength requires deliberate excessive force, not mere numerical superiority. Where the prosecution fails to prove any qualifying circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is convicted only of homicide under Article 249.

Disposition

The appeal was partly granted: the appellant was convicted of homicide rather than murder, sentenced to eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum and fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and the award of 50,000 pesos as indemnity to the heirs, plus costs, was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: once the accused admits the killing, self-defense must stand on its own strength, not on the weakness of the prosecution. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of self-defense, the elements of evident premeditation and treachery, and the rule that failure to prove a qualifying circumstance reduces murder to homicide.