PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDDISON CASTURIA Y DIACOSTA ALIAS “EDDIE” AND JESSIE CASTURIA Y DIACOSTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Casturia

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted two brothers, Eddison Casturia and Jessie Casturia, for the killing of Gomersindo Vallejos. The trial court convicted both of murder and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision the rules on self-defense, on treachery and abuse of superior strength, on conspiracy, and on the civil liability that follows a conviction for murder.

Procedural History

The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Bukidnon filed an information for murder before the Regional Trial Court of Bukidnon, Branch 9, Malaybalay. At arraignment both accused pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The trial court rendered its decision on September 6, 1996, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos. From that judgment the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

At around four o'clock in the afternoon of April 29, 1994, Jessie Casturia was at the barrio hall of Tambulan, Guinuruyan, Valencia, Bukidnon, loading sacks of coffee berries together with his co-workers Amado Nellas and the victim Gomersindo Vallejos. Suddenly Jessie, holding a bolo, shouted, "Who is brave?" His older brother Eddison then arrived and asked Jessie whom he was angry at. Jessie handed the bolo to Eddison, approached Gomersindo, and began boxing and kicking him. Eddison followed up by hacking Gomersindo three times on the head. When Amado Nellas tried to pacify the brothers, Eddison turned his anger on him, and Amado ran for safety. After the killing, both accused left the scene.

Jessie offered a different account. He claimed that earlier that day the group had taken lunch at Eddison's house and consumed six bottles of wine. At the basketball court, he said, Gomersindo asked to drive the jeep, and when Jessie refused because of the poor road and because Gomersindo had no driver's license, Gomersindo boxed him on the chin and nape and he fell unconscious. When he came to, he saw Gomersindo bloodied, and out of fear he rode the jeep and left.

Eddison, for his part, invoked self-defense. He claimed that as he passed the basketball court on his way home, he saw Gomersindo mauling Jessie. He alighted from his motorcycle and asked why Gomersindo was manhandling his brother. Gomersindo, who was unarmed, attacked him instead. Eddison picked up a bolo from the ground to frighten him, but Gomersindo kept charging, so Eddison delivered one hack blow that hit Gomersindo on the left side of his head and his left hand, and then fled.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in discrediting the plea of self-defense of the accused.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery.
• Whether or not abuse of superior strength may be appreciated separately as an aggravating circumstance.
• Whether or not conspiracy attended the killing.
• Whether or not the accused are liable for civil indemnity and moral damages in favor of the heirs of the victim.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines and penalizes murder. It provides:

Article 248. Murder. — 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.

This is the provision under which the accused were charged and convicted, and it supplies the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength that the Court examines.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the plea of self-defense must fail. A plea of self-defense shifts the burden of evidence to the defense, because the accused admits performing the criminal act but disclaims liability on the ground of justification. The accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrent existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Here the reasonableness of the means was absent: Eddison himself admitted that Gomersindo was unarmed, so his use of a bolo was a grossly disproportionate response. Unlawful aggression was likewise absent, since the prosecution eyewitnesses testified uniformly that it was Jessie who first attacked Gomersindo, followed by the fatal hack blows from Eddison. The Court also reiterated that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe their manner of testifying.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing. Eddison delivered three hack blows on the head of an unarmed Gomersindo who was obviously defenseless, and the method employed insured no risk to the assailants arising from any defense the victim might put up.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in separately appreciating abuse of superior strength. That circumstance is absorbed in treachery and cannot be appreciated separately as another aggravating circumstance.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that conspiracy attended the killing. Conspiracy does not require an appreciable period of time to lapse before the occurrence; it is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose. Jessie's act of mauling Gomersindo and then handing the bolo to Eddison, who hacked the victim to death, clearly manifested their common intent.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the single monetary award of 50,000 pesos may be considered as civil indemnity, which is awarded without need of further proof other than the death of the victim. An additional 50,000 pesos may be awarded by way of moral damages, which is mandatory and does not require proof other than the death of the victim.

Doctrine

A plea of self-defense is an admission of the criminal act, so it shifts the burden of evidence to the defense, which must prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrent existence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The use of a deadly weapon against an unarmed aggressor is a grossly disproportionate response that negates the second requisite.

Treachery qualifies a killing when the method employed insures no risk to the assailant from any defense the victim might put up, as where an unarmed and defenseless victim is hacked repeatedly on the head. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery and cannot be appreciated separately as another aggravating circumstance.

Conspiracy does not require an appreciable period of time to lapse before the occurrence; it is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose, as where one accused mauls the victim and then hands the weapon to his companion who delivers the fatal blows.

Civil indemnity is awarded without need of further proof other than the death of the victim, and moral damages are mandatory and likewise require no proof other than the death of the victim.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of both accused for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the modification that an additional 50,000 pesos was awarded as moral damages to the heirs of the victim, with costs against the accused.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery and cannot be appreciated separately, and that self-defense shifts the burden of evidence to the defense. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of self-defense, the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the nature of conspiracy, and the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages in murder cases.