PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE RENATO ALBAO @ JUN AND JOSE ALENO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Albao

The Case

This is a joint appeal by Renato Albao, also called Jun, and Jose Aleno, who were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Branch 47, of murder for the hacking death of Onsing Tangcoy and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. The case matters because it is a compact review of three doctrines a bar candidate must command: the burden of proving self-defense once the accused admits inflicting the fatal injuries, the rule that unlawful aggression, even if proven, does not license a killing beyond what is reasonably necessary, and the rule that denial and alibi, though inherently weak, gain relevance when the prosecution's evidence linking the accused to the crime is inconclusive.

Procedural History

An Information dated February 18, 1991, and filed on February 22, 1991, by Prosecutor Clarito Demaala, charged Albao and Aleno with murder, alleging conspiracy, evident premeditation, and treachery. At their arraignment on May 9, 1991, both accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 47, rendered its Decision on March 14, 1994, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of 50,000 pesos as actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. Because the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, the two accused filed separate appeals directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

At about five thirty in the afternoon of October 28, 1990, in Sitio Reservation, Poblacion, Quezon, Palawan, Tabita Tangcoy was walking home with her husband Onsing Tangcoy and their companion Albinio Usa. They passed the place where Albao and Aleno were drinking. Albao called Onsing over. Tabita tried to dissuade her husband, but he approached the two men anyway, and Tabita walked on.

Looking back, Tabita saw her husband facing Aleno with his back turned to Albao. Albao suddenly hacked Onsing at the back. Tabita ran, and looking back again she saw her husband sprawled on the ground; when he shouted for help, Aleno came out and raised his bolo in a hacking gesture. Albinio Usa likewise testified that he saw Albao hack the victim at the back in daylight, and that the victim was unarmed. About eighteen hours later, Dr. Josieveline Abiog autopsied the cadaver and found nine injuries, eight from a sharp instrument and one, a comminuted fracture of the temporo-occipital area with brain tissue coming out, from a blunt instrument; she opined that the wounds could have been inflicted by two assailants. The cause of death was brain injury with internal and external hemorrhage.

The defense told a different story. Albao admitted killing the victim but claimed self-defense, saying Onsing challenged him, hacked at him twice with a bolo, and that he drew his own bolo only on the third blow, hacking the victim above the left ear and then several more times even when the latter was already defenseless. Nelly Mercader and Jose Canale testified for him, but their accounts of how many hacks were delivered differed from his. Aleno, for his part, offered denial and alibi: he had been a resident of Barangay Mangingisda, Puerto Princesa City, since 1986, was present at a barangay assembly there that afternoon, and that place is about 150 kilometers, or four to five hours of travel, from Quezon, Palawan.

Issues

• Whether or not Renato Albao established self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Jose Aleno.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the trial court convicted the accused, provides:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

The conviction for murder rested on the qualifying circumstance of treachery, which the Court ultimately found absent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Albao did not establish self-defense. Having admitted inflicting the fatal injuries, the burden of evidence shifted to him, and he had to prove the elements of self-defense with clear and convincing evidence. His witnesses gave serious and irreconcilable inconsistencies: Mercader and Canale claimed he immediately drew his bolo and parried with the scabbard, seeing one and two hacks respectively, while Albao himself claimed he deliberately refrained from unsheathing his bolo and merely evaded the first two hacks. It was also undisputed that only the victim was wounded and Albao was unscathed, casting doubt on his claim of unlawful aggression. The trial court's assessment of credibility binds the Court absent overlooked facts of weight and substance, and none appeared.

The Court added an equally cogent reason: unlawful aggression, even assuming its presence, does not give the accused an absolute license to kill. He may put up only a reasonable response to the threat, and after he had neutralized the threat and was no longer in peril, there was no more reason to kill the aggressor. Because treachery was not proven, the crime was reduced from murder to homicide.

On the second issue, the Court acquitted Aleno. The prosecution's evidence linking him to the crime was inconclusive, and in such a situation denial and alibi, though inherently weak, assume relevance. His alibi placed him at a barangay assembly in a place about 150 kilometers and four to five hours of travel away, and the identification against him was doubtful.

Doctrine

First, self-defense must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and where unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is not proven, there can be no self-defense. Second, the fact that the victim initiated the unlawful aggression does not give the person defending an absolute license to kill; the response must be reasonable, and killing is no longer justified once the threat has been neutralized. Third, denial and alibi, while inherently weak, assume relevance when the evidence of the prosecution linking the accused to the crime is inconclusive. Fourth, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is binding and conclusive absent a showing that it overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied facts of weight and substance.

Disposition

The Court acquitted Jose Aleno, but found Renato Albao guilty of homicide, not murder, and sentenced him accordingly.

Remember This

Memorize the line: unlawful aggression does not give the defender an absolute license to kill, and self-defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof in self-defense, the limits of reasonable defense after the threat is neutralized, and the rule that alibi gains relevance when the prosecution's identification is inconclusive.