PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RODOLFO ADVINCULA Y MONDANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Advincula versus People

The Case

This is the appeal of Rodolfo Advincula y Mondano, whom the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted of murder for the stabbing death of Reggie Tan y Arañes in Quezon City in August 2005. The accused admitted the killing but pleaded defense of a relative, claiming he acted to protect his two siblings from Reggie. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole architecture of the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative: unlawful aggression as its primordial element, the shifting of the burden of evidence once the accused admits the killing, and the sharp distinction between self-defense and retaliation. It also restates the elements of treachery and the rules on damages, making it a compact reviewer for criminal law and civil liability.

Procedural History

The accused was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219. After he pleaded not guilty, trial proceeded. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages, and lost earnings. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, Eleventh Division. The Court of Appeals agreed with him that evident premeditation was absent, but held that treachery attended the killing, and affirmed the conviction. The accused then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Supreme Court decided it in April 2018.

Facts

On the afternoon of 4 August 2005, the accused was at home when, according to the defense, Reggie entered the living room armed with a kitchen knife and threatened the accused's two siblings, one a mongoloid and the other mentally ill. When Reggie saw the accused, he ran away and went to a nearby store. The accused followed him there, by his own admission intending to hurt him because of the threats.

At about six in the evening, while Rollane Enriquez, Reggie, and Joseph delos Santos were talking at the store, the accused suddenly sneaked behind Reggie, grabbed his neck with his left arm, and drove a knife into his side. Reggie pushed him away and both fell. Reggie got up and ran, but he stumbled, and the accused caught up with him and stabbed him twice in the chest while he lay on his back. Reggie was brought to the hospital and pronounced dead on arrival.

The medico-legal officer found three fatal stab wounds, on the left chest, the left chest along the axillary line, and the right upper abdomen, which pierced the heart, lung, and liver, and also found abrasions on the knees consistent with a fall. A steel knife about nine inches long was recovered at the arrest. The accused claimed he stabbed Reggie only once, while grappling for the knife.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating treachery and evident premeditation.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim.

Applicable Provisions

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

Are exempt from criminal liability the following: 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. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

This is the provision under which the accused claimed he was justified in stabbing Reggie to protect his siblings.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes 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 crime charged, and treachery is the qualifying circumstance the Court found present.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, on the application of indivisible penalties, provides:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

This is why reclusion perpetua, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties for murder, was imposed.

Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides:

The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition: 1. The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death.

This is the basis for the award of lost earnings to Reggie's heirs.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that defense of a relative was not proven. An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance admits the commission of the acts that would otherwise be criminal, and the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove its elements by clear and convincing evidence: unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and no part in the provocation. Unlawful aggression is the condition sine qua non, and the test is whether the aggression put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defended, the peril not being imagined or imaginary. Here, the credible testimony of Rollane, corroborated by the medico-legal report, showed a swift and deliberate attack without provocation. Even on the defense's own version, no confrontation occurred inside the house, the siblings were not hurt, and any aggression ceased when Reggie left the house for the store. The accused himself admitted he followed Reggie intending to hurt him. The Court put the rule plainly:

When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed.

Retaliation is not self-defense, because in retaliation the aggression begun by the injured party had already ceased when the accused attacked him. The nature, number, and location of the wounds, three fatal blows, also showed a determined effort to kill, not to defend.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing, while evident premeditation was correctly discarded. Treachery requires that at the time of the attack the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the means of execution. The accused sneaked behind Reggie and put him in a headlock, denying him any chance to parry the blows, and when Reggie fled and stumbled, bleeding, he delivered two more fatal blows. The killing was therefore murder.

On the third issue, the Court modified the damages. Following the ruling in People versus Jugueta, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were each fixed at 75,000 pesos. Since the receipted expenses for the wake and burial amounted to less than 50,000 pesos, temperate damages of 50,000 pesos were awarded in lieu of actual damages. Loss of earning capacity was computed using the standard formula of two thirds of eighty minus the age of the deceased, multiplied by the net annual income, yielding 825,930 pesos. Interest at six percent per annum runs on all monetary awards from finality of the decision until fully paid.

Doctrine

• An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Article 11 admits the killing; the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove its elements 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 condition sine qua non of defense of a relative; without it, the other elements have no factual and legal basis, and the defense must fail.
• When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender has no right to kill or wound the former aggressor; to do so is retaliation, not defense.
• Treachery requires that the victim was not in a position to defend himself and that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the means of execution; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, failing which the crime is homicide, not murder.
• For murder, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, and under Article 63 the lesser penalty is imposed absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction for murder, modifying the damages to 75,000 pesos each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, 50,000 pesos as temperate damages, and 825,930 pesos for loss of earning capacity, with interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize the line that retaliation is not self-defense: when the aggression has ceased, the defender who strikes back is himself the aggressor. Examiners use this case to test the elements of defense of a relative, the burden of evidence once the accused admits the killing, and the distinction between treachery and evident premeditation.