PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONILLO LOPEZ, JR. Y MANTALABA @ “DODONG”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Lopez

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Ronillo Lopez, Junior, known as Dodong, for the killing of his own father, Ronillo Lopez, Senior. The charge is parricide, the killing of a father by his son, defined and penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused admitted stabbing his father but claimed he acted in self-defense. The case matters because it gathers in one place the whole law of self-defense as a justifying circumstance: who carries the burden of proof once the accused admits the killing, what unlawful aggression means, and why the physical evidence, not the accused's story, usually decides the question.

Procedural History

The accused was charged by Information with parricide. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty, and after pre-trial the case went to trial on the merits. The Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 197, rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide. The trial court rejected his claim of self-defense for want of unlawful aggression, and it refused to credit voluntary surrender because he did not surrender but was arrested the following morning. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole and ordered to pay damages to the heirs.

He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that not an iota of evidence showed any aggression on the part of the victim. It corrected the penalty to reclusion perpetua, deleting the phrase without eligibility of parole, and increased the exemplary damages. Still dissatisfied, the accused brought the present appeal to the Supreme Court, raising the same lone assignment of error he had raised below. Both parties filed manifestations in lieu of supplemental briefs, each adopting its earlier pleadings.

Facts

In the early morning of May 16, 2014, Martita Lopez, the accused's grandmother, was at her house in Las Piñas City when she heard her grandson shout for help, saying, "Lola! Lola! Tulungan mo po ako." When she asked what happened, he told her, "nasaksak ko si papa," meaning he had stabbed his father. She and Saturnino Madroño, who had also heard the admission and the cry for help, went with the accused to the house on Panay Street, where they found Ronillo Lopez, Senior, lying on the ground. Madroño checked the victim's pulse and determined that he was already dead. They reported the incident to the police.

The medico-legal examination showed that the victim suffered multiple physical injuries, including abrasions and contusions, and that the cause of death was a single stab wound to the chest, which pierced the left lung, the pericardial sac and the heart, and fractured the ribs. The accused fled from the scene and was later arrested at his brother-in-law's house in Parañaque City upon a tip from a certain Samuel Lopez.

For his part, the accused admitted stabbing his father but insisted he acted in self-defense. He testified that he had been drinking with his father and relatives the day before, went home ahead in a drunken state, and slept. He claimed he woke to beatings from his drunken father, who was shouting at him and who later struck him on the head with a hard object. He said his vision darkened and he could no longer restrain himself, so he struck back with a knife. He claimed he sustained a wound on his forehead, swollen cheeks and abrasions on his hands, and his sister Robilie corroborated that she saw these marks. She also revealed that their father, when drunk, would curse at his son and had once pushed and collared him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the accused's claim of self-defense despite his assertion that all its elements were present.
• Whether or not the accused proved unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the indispensable requisite of self-defense.
• Whether or not the means employed by the accused were reasonably necessary to repel the alleged aggression.
• Whether or not all the elements of parricide were established beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the penalty and damages awarded were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines and penalizes parricide, and provides:

Article 246. Parricide. Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

This is the crime charged, and its elements are the framework of the conviction.

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code lists the justifying circumstances, among them self-defense, and provides:

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: 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 three requisites are the very test the Court applies to the accused's plea, and his failure on the first and second defeats the defense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal is devoid of merit. The accused admitted the killing, and by pleading self-defense he effectively admitted authorship of the act. The burden therefore shifted to him to prove the justifying circumstance by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

In pleading self-defense, petitioner in effect admitted that he stabbed the victim. It was then incumbent upon him to prove that justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court, relying on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.

On the second issue, the Court held that unlawful aggression, the condition sine qua non, the indispensable requisite, was not proven. The test is whether the aggression put the defender's life or personal safety in real peril, and the peril must not be imagined or imaginary. The physical evidence belied the claim: when the accused was brought by his arresting officer to the Las Piñas City Health Center for examination, the attending physician found no external signs of physical injuries, and no medication was applied or prescribed. The Court lent credence to the government physician, who is presumed to have performed his duty regularly. By contrast, the victim suffered an abrasion on the forehead, an abrasion on the left eyebrow, a hematoma on the right hand, contusion and abrasion on the right leg, and the fatal stab wound on the chest. The Court found that the victim was by no means the unlawful aggressor.

On the third issue, the Court held that even granting that the father was the initial aggressor, the means employed were not reasonable. The nature and location of the wound showed a resolve to end the victim's life, not merely to repel an attack. The victim was inebriated, and it would have been easier to subdue him without stabbing his chest with a kitchen knife. The Court also noted that the accused did not inform the authorities at the earliest opportunity, did not surrender the knife, and hid until arrested upon a tip, and that flight is an indication of guilt.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that all the elements of parricide were proven: the fact of death, the killing by the accused, and the relationship of son and father, shown by the birth certificate and the marriage certificate of his parents. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was proper, and the damages of 75,000 pesos each for civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages were consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, with actual damages of 60,000 pesos maintained, plus interest at six percent per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.

Doctrine

When an accused admits killing the victim but pleads self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him. He must establish the justifying circumstance by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence, and he cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. Unlawful aggression is the primordial and indispensable requisite of self-defense; without it, there can be no justified killing, complete or incomplete. The aggression must be a physical or material attack, actual or at least imminent, and unlawful, and it must have placed the defender's life or personal safety in real, not imagined, peril. The means employed must be reasonably necessary to repel the attack, judged by the nature and location of the wounds and the weapon used. Flight, in the absence of a credible explanation, is an indication of guilt. These rules are tied directly to Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, whose three requisites must concur, and to Article 246, whose elements the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed with modification, and the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay the heirs actual damages of 60,000 pesos, civil indemnity of 75,000 pesos, moral damages of 75,000 pesos, and exemplary damages of 75,000 pesos, plus interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that self-defense, once the killing is admitted, must be proven by the accused with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence, and it fails without unlawful aggression. Examiners like to use this case to test the burden of proof in self-defense, the indispensability of unlawful aggression, and the rule that flight is evidence of guilt.