PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO RAMOS AND MARISSA INTERO RAMOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Ramos

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted and secured the conviction of spouses Rogelio Ramos and Marissa Intero Ramos for the killing of Ronald Abacco. Rogelio admitted that he killed the victim but claimed self-defense, while Marissa denied any participation and interposed alibi. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole architecture of a self-defense plea, the strict test for alibi, the deference owed to the trial court's credibility findings, and the elements of treachery as a qualifying circumstance — the everyday stock-in-trade of criminal law examinations.

Procedural History

The spouses were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 32. Both pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, and after pre-trial, trial on the merits followed. The trial court convicted both of murder, sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to pay the heirs of the victim 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, adding 25,000 pesos in exemplary damages. The spouses then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, assigning the same errors they had raised below. The Supreme Court decided the appeal in July 2013.

Facts

In the evening of April 11, 2006, in the town of Santo Tomas, La Union, Rogelio threw stones at the house of his brother-in-law, where the victim Ronald Abacco and others were resting. When warned to stop, Rogelio retreated to his own house. After a while, Marissa came out and shouted at them. Abacco, then unarmed, walked to the spouses' house and asked Rogelio to come out so they could talk.

According to the prosecution eyewitnesses, the spouses were crouching behind a gumamela bush before Rogelio opened the gate. As soon as the gate opened, Rogelio hacked Abacco twice with a samurai sword. When Abacco fell, the spouses dragged him into their yard and banged his head against the wall. Abacco begged for his life, saying, "Tama na bayaw, tama na, hindi ako lalaban." Marissa then hacked him on the back with a bolo and told Rogelio, "Sige, patayin mo na yan." Rogelio continued hacking until Abacco died. The autopsy showed twelve wounds and death from massive blood loss; the blade sliced through flesh and exposed bone, and one wound almost cut through the spinal cord.

The defense told a different story. Rogelio claimed that while he was bathing, Abacco stoned their house and challenged him; that when he went out to look for Marissa, Abacco suddenly hacked his right arm with a bolo; and that he fetched his samurai sword, parried the blows, seized Abacco's hand and bolo, and hacked him in self-defense. Marissa claimed she was elsewhere, seeking barangay officials, and reached the house of a barangay kagawad about 400 meters away. The physician who attended to Rogelio described his injuries as minor and even raised the possibility that they were self-inflicted.

Issues

• Whether or not Rogelio's plea of self-defense must fail for want of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and for want of reasonable necessity of the means employed.
• Whether or not Marissa's defenses of denial and alibi must fail.
• Whether or not the trial court's findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses should be disturbed.
• Whether or not treachery attended the killing, qualifying it to murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code defines the justifying circumstance of self-defense:

Self-defense. The penalties provided by law shall be imposed upon any person who, in defending his person or his rights, shall have acted in accordance with the following requisites: 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 Rogelio's plea, and the Court found the first two wanting.

Article 14, paragraph 16, subparagraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery:

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.

This is the circumstance that qualified the killing to murder.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes murder, and the Court applied it because treachery qualified the killing.

Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of indivisible penalties:

When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

This is the basis for imposing reclusion perpetua rather than death.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that when the accused admits being the author of the victim's death and anchors his defense on self-defense, the burden shifts to him to prove the justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's. Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element, for if none is established, there is nothing to repel. Here, the eyewitnesses showed Abacco was unarmed, and his act of going to the house and calling Rogelio out to talk was not unlawful aggression. Rogelio's own injuries were minor, possibly self-inflicted, while Abacco's wounds were multiple and fatal. As to the second element, the Court held the means grossly disproportionate: the nature, number, and location of the wounds showed a determined effort to kill, not merely to defend.

On the second issue, the Court held that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove she was present at another place at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for her to be at the scene. Physical impossibility refers to distance and facility of access. The house of the barangay kagawad was only 400 meters away, and jurisprudence has held that even two, three, or five kilometers are not too far. Positive identification by eyewitnesses prevails over alibi, which is easily fabricated and inherently unreliable.

On the third issue, the Court declined to disturb the trial court's credibility findings, especially as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Even assuming improper motive on the part of two prosecution witnesses, the defense failed to impeach another eyewitness who positively identified the spouses as the assailants.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing. The victim, fallen to the ground and begging for mercy, was in no position to offer any defense nor pose any risk to his attackers. Treachery having qualified the killing, the crime is murder, and with no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.

Doctrine

• When the accused admits killing the victim and pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove all three requisites of Article 11, paragraph 1 by clear and convincing evidence; he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not the weakness of the prosecution's.
• Unlawful aggression is indispensable to self-defense; a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not unlawful aggression, and the aggression must place the defender's life and personal safety in actual peril.
• The nature, number, and location of the victim's wounds may belie self-defense, since their gravity indicates a determined effort to kill rather than to defend.
• Alibi requires proof that the accused was elsewhere at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for her to be at the scene; physical impossibility turns on distance and facility of access, and short distances do not satisfy it.
• Positive identification by eyewitnesses prevails over alibi and denial.
• Factual findings of the trial court on witness credibility are accorded the utmost respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, absent misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion.
• Treachery qualifies a killing to murder where the means employed insure its execution without risk to the offender from any defense the victim might make.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed; the conviction of both spouses for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua were affirmed, with exemplary damages increased to 30,000 pesos, actual damages of 40,000 pesos added, and interest at six percent per annum imposed on all monetary awards from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense, for if there is nothing to repel, self-defense is unavailing. Examiners use this case for the burden of proof in admitted killings, the wound-count test for reasonable necessity, the 400-meter alibi, and treachery against a fallen and defenseless victim.