THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JAIME CASTILLANO, SR. ALIAS “TALINO,” RONALD CASTILLANO ALIAS “NONO” AND JAIME CASTILLANO, JR. ALIAS “JUNJUN,” ACCUSED,

Castillano versus People

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a murder case. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Jaime Castillano, Senior, and his two sons, Ronald Castillano and Jaime Castillano, Junior, for the killing of Diosdado Volante, a farmer, in his own home in Barangay Sagrada, Bula, Camarines Sur, on the evening of the eighth of July, nineteen hundred ninety-six. The trial court convicted the two sons of murder and acquitted the father on reasonable doubt. The case matters to the reviewee for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of how the burden shifts once an accused pleads self-defense, and it is a precise lesson on the laying of a predicate before a witness may be impeached by prior inconsistent statements.

Procedural History

A criminal complaint for murder was filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Bula, Camarines Sur, which conducted the preliminary examination and issued an order of arrest without recommending bail. An Information for murder was then filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31. On arraignment, all three accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. On the twenty-second of December, nineteen hundred ninety-eight, the trial court rendered judgment convicting Ronald and Jaime, Junior, of murder qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay the heirs of the victim actual and moral damages including death indemnity. The trial court acquitted Jaime, Senior, on reasonable doubt. The two convicted accused appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the rejection of Ronald's plea of self-defense and the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of Jaime, Junior, beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

Diosdado Volante lived with his wife Luz and their four children on their farmland in Sitio Danawan, about two hundred meters from the farmhouse of Jaime Castillano, Senior. In early June of nineteen hundred ninety-six, Jaime, Senior, fired his gun indiscriminately. Diosdado asked him to stop, fearing a stray bullet might hit his family. Jaime, Senior, resented the request, and a heated altercation ensued, during which he fired his gun toward Diosdado's house. From then on, deep animosity existed between the two families, and Jaime, Senior, always carried a bolo when passing Diosdado's house.

On the eighth of July, nineteen hundred ninety-six, between five and six in the evening, a teacher, Levy Avila, overheard Jaime, Junior, and Ronald talking by the roadside, planning to go to Diosdado's house and saying, in the local tongue, that they did not like being taunted. Levy urged them to settle their differences peacefully. That same evening, around eight o'clock, as Luz and Diosdado were about to retire, Luz heard voices and saw Jaime, Senior, holding a flashlight, approaching with his two sons. Jaime, Senior, fired his gun at the house. Luz hid near the rear door with her baby. The three men barged in and ganged up on Diosdado. Ronald, armed with a bladed weapon, stabbed him on the breast, the thigh, and the back, and struck him with a one-meter pipe. Jaime, Senior, then fired his gun, hitting Diosdado on the right thigh. The attackers fled in a jeep. Luz ran to a neighbor for help, and the police were summoned.

Police investigators found a bolo and its scabbard near the body and a bullet hole in the wall. An autopsy showed multiple stab wounds, a hacked wound, and a gunshot wound to the right thigh, with a slug recovered from the leg; the cause of death was hypovolemia secondary to multiple stab wounds. A manhunt led to a checkpoint, where the three Castillanos were stopped on board a passenger jeepney at about twelve forty-five in the morning, each carrying a bag of clothes, and were brought to the police station and arrested. Ronald was later found positive for gunpowder residue. At trial, Ronald admitted killing Diosdado but claimed self-defense and defense of his brother, saying Diosdado had rushed at them with a bolo. Jaime, Senior, denied participation, claiming he was bedridden at home with diabetes. The trial court rejected Ronald's defense and convicted him and Jaime, Junior, while acquitting the father.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in rejecting the plea of self-defense and defense of a relative of the accused Ronald Castillano.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused Jaime Castillano, Junior, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in light of the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of Luz Volante.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence governs the impeachment of a witness by prior inconsistent statements:

How witness is impeached by evidence of inconsistent statement. - Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them.

This provision is decisive because the defense sought to discredit Luz Volante using her testimony at the preliminary examination and her sworn statement to the police, without ever confronting her with those statements.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the plea of self-defense must fail. Self-defense, like alibi, is inherently weak because it is easy to fabricate, and when invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove with clear and convincing evidence its essential requisites: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. By pleading self-defense, the accused admits having killed the victim and can no longer be exonerated if he fails to prove the confluence of these requisites. The Court found that Ronald failed to discharge that burden. He fled from the scene, a veritable badge of guilt. He threw away his unlicensed paltik gun and the bolo instead of surrendering them to the police. He never reported the incident nor claimed self-defense when arrested, and he failed to submit a counter-affidavit despite a subpoena, raising self-defense for the first time only at trial. The cadaver was found inside the house, contradicting his claim that he shot the victim in the rice paddies. And the number and nature of the wounds, including stab wounds at the back and the posterior ankle, negated self-defense and proved a determination to kill.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General that the credibility of Luz could not be impeached by her testimony at the preliminary examination or her sworn statement to the police, because those were neither marked and offered in evidence nor admitted by the trial court, and the defense never confronted her with them. The Court stressed that before a witness may be impeached by prior inconsistent statements, the cross-examiner must lay the predicate, giving the witness a chance to recollect and explain the apparent inconsistency. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that the statements of a witness prior to her present testimony cannot serve as basis for impeaching her credibility unless her attention was directed to the inconsistencies and she was given an opportunity to explain them. Absent that foundation, the alleged inconsistencies could not be considered.

Doctrine

First, self-defense and defense of a relative are inherently weak defenses; the accused who pleads them admits the killing and bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the essential requisites, foremost of which is unlawful aggression, and failure to prove them means conviction. Flight from the scene, discarding the weapon, silence when arrested, and the number and location of the wounds are all badges that negate self-defense.

Second, under Section 13, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, a witness cannot be impeached by prior inconsistent statements unless the predicate is laid: the statements must be related to the witness with the circumstances of time, place, and persons present, the witness must be asked whether he made them, and if in writing, they must be shown to him before any question is put concerning them. Without this foundation, the prior statements cannot serve as basis for impeachment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ronald Castillano and Jaime Castillano, Junior, for murder and their sentence of reclusion perpetua, with the award of damages to the heirs of Diosdado Volante sustained.

Remember This

Memorize this line: by pleading self-defense, the accused admits the killing and must prove its requisites by clear and convincing evidence, or be convicted. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof in self-defense and the laying of a predicate under Section 13, Rule 132 before impeaching a witness.