THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMILIO AGAG, REYNALDO AGAG AND ABRAHAM AGAG, ACCUSED, REYNALDO AGAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Agag

The Case

This is People versus Agag, a criminal case for murder decided by the Supreme Court in June 1984. Three members of one family — a father, his son, and a nephew — were charged with killing Charles Lallave in Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it illustrates how conspiracy is proved by the concerted conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime; it shows how the Supreme Court tests a claim of self-defense against the physical evidence; and it demonstrates the rule that voluntary surrender is not appreciated where the accused was already served a warrant of arrest. It also shows the Court reducing a death sentence to reclusion perpetua for lack of the required number of votes.

Procedural History

The Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte charged Emilio Agag, Reynaldo Agag, and Abraham Agag with murder before the then Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. After trial, the trial court rendered its decision on September 27, 1982, finding all three guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. Reynaldo Agag, having been found a recidivist, was sentenced to death; Emilio Agag and Abraham Agag were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. All three were ordered to indemnify the heirs of Charles Lallave. Because the death penalty was imposed on Reynaldo Agag, the trial court forwarded the records to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The case of Reynaldo Agag thus reached the Supreme Court on automatic review, not by ordinary appeal.

Facts

Between 5:30 and 6:00 in the afternoon of March 1, 1979, Charles Lallave was in the house of Braulio Mallari at Barangay Masikil, Bangui, Ilocos Norte, talking with Adela Mallari. His mother, Ines Flora Lallave, had fetched him so they could take supper, and she was standing on the road waiting for him. Emilio Agag, his son Reynaldo, and his nephew Abraham arrived in a tricycle. They alighted, and Emilio immediately went inside the Mallari house armed with a bolo. He kicked the door open and began stabbing Charles, hitting him in the breast — a wound that penetrated the chest and perforated the heart. Reynaldo and Abraham, who had entered through the eastern gate, helped carry Charles outside, and there Emilio stabbed him again while Reynaldo and Abraham held him. Emilio continued stabbing, followed by Reynaldo, with Abraham holding the victim by the arms. Ines Flora could only cry and shout for help. The three accused then left together.

Dr. Domingo Samonte, Jr. responded but found the victim already dead. The autopsy report showed a total of thirty eight wounds all over the body, six of them fatal, all caused by a sharp pointed, bladed instrument. A complaint was filed by the Integrated National Police Substation Commander with the Municipal Circuit Court of Bangui, and after preliminary examination the Municipal Circuit Judge issued a warrant for the arrest of the three accused.

In his defense, Reynaldo claimed that he had gone to the store of Braulio Mallari to buy cigarettes, saw Charles about three meters away drawing a bolo from his waist and threatening to kill him, stepped backward, and threw a fist sized stone that hit Charles between the eyes and felled him. He threw another stone, then took the bolo from Charles and stabbed him several times, then used his own bolo to hack him, and ran away. He admitted sole responsibility for all the injuries but claimed self-defense. The day after the incident, a warrant of arrest was served on him by a policeman who took him into custody. He also admitted during trial that he had been previously convicted of less serious physical injuries and sentenced to one month of imprisonment.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding Reynaldo Agag as the one who killed Charles Lallave, and in finding that the three accused acted in conspiracy.
• Whether or not Reynaldo Agag acted in self-defense, so as to be absolved of liability.
• Whether or not Reynaldo Agag is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of recidivism was properly appreciated against Reynaldo Agag.
• Whether or not the penalty of death was properly imposed on Reynaldo Agag.

Applicable Provisions

The information charged the crime of murder, and the Court applied the law on conspiracy and self-defense. On conspiracy, the governing principle is that when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, there is conspiracy. The Court applied this principle to the concerted acts of the three accused.

On self-defense, the primordial requisite is unlawful aggression. The Court quoted its own ruling in People versus Sabio:

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-defense, for without it there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

This bears on the case because the Court found that the deceased was not even able to draw the alleged bolo from his waist when Reynaldo threw a stone at him, so there was no real danger to life or personal safety.

On voluntary surrender, the Court held that there can be no voluntary surrender where the accused gave himself up only after a warrant of arrest had been served on him. The Court did not quote the provision, but applied the settled rule that surrender must be spontaneous and before arrest.

On recidivism, the Court relied on the allegation in the information and on Reynaldo's own admission that he had been previously convicted of less serious physical injuries and sentenced to one month of imprisonment. Recidivism requires a prior conviction by final judgment for another offense embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code, and the Court found that this was established.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the three accused acted in conspiracy. The positive earmarks of conspiracy were present: all three arrived together in a tricycle and alighted near the house where the victim was; Emilio kicked the door open and entered while Reynaldo and Abraham entered through the eastern gate; Emilio stabbed the victim while Reynaldo and Abraham held him by the hands; the three lifted and brought Charles out of the house like a pig and laid him flat on the ground; Abraham held the arms and Reynaldo the legs while Emilio stabbed him again many times; and immediately thereafter they left together. The Court held that by their acts the three aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the others another part so as to complete it, with a view to attaining the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. The trial court was therefore justified in concluding that their conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime clearly showed that they acted in concert.

On the second issue, the Court held that even on the basis of Reynaldo's testimony that he alone assaulted and killed Charles, he could not escape liability because his self-defense theory was not credible. First, the deceased sustained thirty eight wounds, some inflicted when he was already lying prostrate on the ground, helpless, whereas Reynaldo did not suffer even a scratch, contusion, or abrasion. Second, no weapon, deadly or otherwise, was found about or near the victim's body; if there had been one, which Reynaldo claimed he took away from Charles, he should have surrendered it to the police. Third, the element of unlawful aggression, the primordial requisite for self-defense, was not present, because there was no real danger to life or personal safety. The deceased was not even able to draw the alleged bolo from his waist when Reynaldo threw a stone at him, causing him to fall to the ground. In other words, Reynaldo's life was at no time in danger.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no voluntary surrender to speak of, because the day after the incident a warrant of arrest was served on Reynaldo by a policeman who took him into custody and brought him to the police station. He gave himself to the custody of the police only after the warrant was served on him.

On the fourth issue, the Court found that recidivism was properly appreciated, since Reynaldo himself admitted during trial that he had been previously convicted of less serious physical injuries and sentenced to one month of imprisonment.

On the fifth issue, the Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court but modified it. For lack of the necessary votes, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, and the indemnity to the heirs of the victim was increased to 30,000 pesos.

Doctrine

Conspiracy is proved not by direct evidence of a prior agreement but by the concerted conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. When the accused aim at the same object, one performing one part and the others another part so as to complete it, their acts, though apparently independent, are in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. A conspirator is liable for the acts of his co-conspirators.

Self-defense requires, as its primordial requisite, unlawful aggression — a real danger to life or personal safety. Without it, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete. The claim is tested against the physical evidence: the number and location of the wounds, the relative injuries of the accused, and the presence or absence of the alleged weapon.

Voluntary surrender, to be mitigating, must be spontaneous and made before the service of a warrant of arrest. Surrender after a warrant has been served is not voluntary.

Recidivism is appreciated where the accused has been previously convicted by final judgment of another offense embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code, and it may be established by the accused's own admission during trial.

Where the penalty of death is imposed but the required number of votes is not obtained, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The judgment appealed from was affirmed, but modified in the sense that, for lack of the necessary votes, Reynaldo Agag was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and the indemnity to the heirs of Charles Lallave was increased to 30,000 pesos, with costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that conspiracy is shown by the concerted conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime, and that self-defense fails without unlawful aggression. Examiners like to use this case to test the requisites of self-defense against the physical evidence, the rule on voluntary surrender after a warrant of arrest, and the appreciation of recidivism based on the accused's own admission.