PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES, Appellee, vs. CHARLIE VILLA, JR., Accused,Appellant.

People versus Villa

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Charlie Villa, Junior, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The accused admits he struck the fatal blow but claims he acted in self-defense, so the case turns on who was the aggressor and on whether the killing was qualified by treachery. It matters because it gathers in one place the rules a bar candidate must be able to recite cold: the requisites of self-defense, the burden of proof that shifts to the accused, the deference owed to the trial court's assessment of witnesses, and the two elements of treachery.

Procedural History

The accused was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal. At his arraignment, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, he entered a plea of not guilty, and trial followed. The trial court convicted him of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as death indemnity and another 50,000 pesos as temperate damages.

The accused filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court transmitted the records to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review, conformably with its ruling in People versus Mateo. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in all respects but reduced the temperate damages from 50,000 pesos to 25,000 pesos. The case then came before the Supreme Court on review.

Facts

In the early hours of 18 July 1997, a wake was being held in Barangay San Roque, Antipolo. Rodolfo Arevalo was there drinking coffee. At around three o'clock in the morning, the accused, who was also attending the wake, suddenly boxed a certain Marlo Rellosa in the face for no reason at all. He then turned to a sleeping boy and began putting biscuits into the boy's mouth. Rodolfo saw this and advised the accused not to disturb the child, saying, "Huwag mo pagtripan ang batang natutulog." The accused retorted, "Anong pakialam mo?"

Shortly after, Rodolfo left the wake and headed home. The accused, wearing a brass knuckle wrapped in a handkerchief, followed him and punched him three to five times, hitting him on the nape. Rodolfo fell to the ground unconscious. When people asked the accused to help carry the victim, he merely smiled and said Rodolfo had only fainted, then crossed the street and boarded a jeepney for Manila. Rodolfo was rushed to several hospitals before he was finally accepted and treated at a hospital in Marikina City, but he died at three o'clock in the afternoon of that same day. The autopsy showed the cause of death as intracranial hemorrhage secondary to skull fracture, and the medico-legal officer found four external injuries, three on the head and one on the trunk, with the fracture at the right parietal occipital region caused by a hard blunt object.

The defense invoked self-defense. The accused testified that Rodolfo had picked up a stone when he answered back, that the people at the wake asked both of them to leave, and that Rodolfo uttered, "Antayin mo ako, babalikan kita." He claimed Rodolfo later returned armed with a club and hit him, so he boxed the victim once on the nape. A defense witness, Randy Jose Gonzales, gave a different account, saying the accused left first and was chased by Rodolfo with a dos por dos. The victim's son Orly and another witness, Roger Herrera, testified for the prosecution that the accused followed the victim and punched him from behind with a metal knuckle.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused proved the justifying circumstance of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.
• Whether or not the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses should be disturbed on appeal.
• Whether or not the killing was qualified by treachery so as to constitute murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, on justifying circumstances, provides:

Are exempt from criminal liability the following persons: 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 are the requisites the accused had to establish, and the Court found the first of them wanting.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, on murder, 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.

Treachery is the qualifying circumstance the Court found present, raising the killing from homicide to murder.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that self-defense was not proved. The burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the killing was justified rests on the accused, who must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's. Here the unlawful aggression did not originate from the victim but from the accused. The victim had merely reprimanded him, and the accused, nursing that ill feeling, went after the victim as he was leaving, and with the brass knuckle on his right fist, without warning, punched his nape until he fell unconscious. The accused's flight from the scene instead of reporting the incident was highly indicative of guilt. The physical evidence also refuted him: the fatal wound was at the back of the head, and the autopsy showed four injuries, not the single blow he claimed. It was inconceivable that he could have struck the back of the victim's head if, as he said, they were facing each other, and the conflicting accounts of the two defense witnesses showed the defense was a mere afterthought.

On the second issue, the Court declined to disturb the findings of the trial court, affirmed as they were by the Court of Appeals. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best performed by the trial judge, who can weigh testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct, and position, and appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded unless the lower courts manifestly overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts of significance. No such error was shown.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery qualified the killing to murder. The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. Two elements are required: the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, who thus has no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and the deliberate or conscious choice of such means, methods, or manner of execution. The victim was punched from behind while walking home, unaware that the accused had taken his advice badly, and could not put up a defense because the attack was swift and he was not in a position to repel it.

Doctrine

Self-defense is a justifying circumstance that exempts the accused from criminal liability only when three requisites concur: 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. The accused who invokes it bears the burden of proving it by clear and convincing evidence, and he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's.

The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is generally conclusive and binding on appellate courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, absent a showing that facts of significance were manifestly overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded.

Treachery qualifies a killing to murder where the offender employs means, methods, or manner of execution that ensure his safety from any retaliatory act and leave the victim no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation, and where that choice of means is deliberate or conscious. It must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in all respects, sustaining the conviction of Charlie Villa, Junior for murder, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and the award of temperate damages of 25,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the accused who pleads self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's, and that flight after the incident negates the plea. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of self-defense, the burden of proof, the conclusiveness of the trial court's credibility findings, and the two elements of treachery.