PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BALTAZAR LACAO, SR., PATRIA LACAO AND TRINIDAD LACAO MANSILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Lacao

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Baltazar Lacao, Senior, his wife Patria Lacao, and his sister Trinidad Lacao Mansilla for the complex crime of murder with direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority, arising from the killing of Police Corporal Jose Inocencio, Junior at a wake in Capiz. The case matters for the bar because it is a compact laboratory on three recurring examination points: the burden of proof in self-defense, the exacting standard for proving conspiracy, and the distinction between a principal by direct participation and a mere accomplice when there is no conspiracy.

Procedural History

An information was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Capiz, Branch Twenty-One, charging five accused. Two of them, Baltazar Lacao the Second and Baltazar Lacao the Third, were never apprehended and remained at large. Upon arraignment, Baltazar Lacao, Senior admitted killing the victim but interposed self-defense, and a plea of not guilty was entered for him; Patria Lacao and Trinidad Mansilla likewise pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court convicted the three appellants of the crime charged, sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The three convicted accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the finding of guilt, the rejection of self-defense, the appreciation of treachery against all of them, and the finding of conspiracy against the two women.

Facts

At about ten o'clock in the evening of September 28, 1985, prosecution witness Mila Parto was at her house in Barangay Manibad, Mambusao, Capiz, attending to persons who came to the wake of her aunt. A commotion arose at the ground floor from a card game. Baltazar Lacao the Second, who was losing in argument with Mansueto Rivera, drew his knife and pointed it at the latter's neck, then went inside the house wielding the knife and causing the guests to panic.

Corporal Jose Inocencio, Junior went down to pacify the people. When he saw Baltazar Lacao the Second with a knife, he held the latter's hand holding the knife. The young man said, "Nyor, release me," and when the corporal did not, his mother Patria Lacao said, "Nyor, release my son." The moment the corporal released him, Baltazar Lacao the Second suddenly stabbed him on his right side. Baltazar Lacao, Senior, his other son Baltazar Lacao the Third, Patria Lacao, and Trinidad Lacao Mansilla then rushed inside and surrounded the victim. The men stabbed him several times while the women hit him with stools. The victim was pushed toward the kitchen door and slumped on the floor face downward; Baltazar Lacao, Senior sat astride him and continued stabbing him as he lay prostrate. The gun of the corporal was taken, and all the accused went away.

The autopsy showed fifteen stab wounds, most of them fatal, and the cause of death was cardiac tamponade with severe internal and external hemorrhage. The defense was self-defense for Baltazar Lacao, Senior, who claimed the victim tried to shoot him but the gun did not fire, and alibi for the two women.

Issues

• Whether or not Baltazar Lacao, Senior acted in complete self-defense when he stabbed the victim.
• Whether or not conspiracy attended the killing, such that all the assailants are liable as principals.
• Whether or not treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance against all the appellants.
• Whether or not Patria Lacao and Trinidad Lacao Mansilla are guilty as accomplices rather than as principals.

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.

This is the provision under which the appellant claimed justification, and which he bore the burden of proving.

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, on aggravating circumstances, provides:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, 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 definition the Court applied in sustaining treachery against all the appellants.

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, on complex crimes, provides:

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

This governs the penalty for the complex crime of murder with direct assault.

Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code, on the liability of accomplices, provides:

The accomplices shall be liable for the penalties next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony.

This is the basis for the lower indeterminate penalty imposed on the two women.

Ruling

On self-defense, the Court held that by pleading it the appellant necessarily admitted killing the victim and was duty-bound to prove its essential requisites by clear and convincing evidence, the burden having shifted to him. The first requisite is indispensable: there can be no self-defense unless unlawful aggression is proven, for if there is no unlawful aggression there is nothing to prevent or repel. The claim that the victim fired at him was refuted by eyewitnesses who said the gun never left the waistband and fell only when the victim was pushed, and by the finding that none of the six bullets recovered showed any mark of having been fired. Even indulging his theory, he exceeded the limits of what was necessary, continuing to stab a victim already slumped and helpless.

On conspiracy, the Court was not impressed. Conspiracy must be proved with as much certainty as the crime itself, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt, and it presupposes a prior agreement or contemporaneous understanding to kill. Here the attack originated spontaneously from and was initiated unexpectedly by Baltazar Lacao the Second; the others joined instinctively, without any call or signal, and there was no intimation of a prior murderous intent. The spontaneity of their reactions ruled out conspiracy, so each liability was determined by the nature of each individual participation.

On treachery, the Court agreed with the trial court. The deceased was stabbed without warning the moment he unsuspectingly released the hand of Baltazar Lacao the Second, so sudden and unanticipated that he had no chance to defend himself. Even if the acts were independently performed, the concerted action ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the assailants, and superior strength was absorbed as an integral part of the treacherous mode of commission.

On the liability of the two women, the Court held that they cooperated in the execution of the offense by simultaneous acts which, although not indispensable, bore a relation to the acts of the principal and supplied material or moral aid efficaciously. Aware of the criminal intent of the principals and participating in the murderous design without a conspiracy, they were guilty of the milder form of responsibility as accomplices. Recidivism was properly considered against Baltazar Lacao, Senior, since a pardon does not obliterate the fact of a prior conviction, and it offset his voluntary surrender.

Doctrine

Self-defense is a justifying circumstance that must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and the accused who invokes it admits the killing and bears the burden of proving unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Conspiracy must be proved with the same degree of proof as the crime itself, that is, beyond reasonable doubt, and cannot be inferred from mere unison of action where the attack arose spontaneously. Treachery qualifies the killing where the attack is sudden and unanticipated, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. Where there is no conspiracy, the liability of each participant is determined by his individual participation, and one who supplies material or moral aid without being indispensable is an accomplice, not a principal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction with modifications: Baltazar Lacao, Senior remained liable for the complex crime and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, while Patria Lacao and Trinidad Lacao Mansilla were held guilty only as accomplices and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, with the death indemnity increased to 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that conspiracy must be proved with as much certainty as the crime itself, and that self-defense shifts the burden of proof to the accused. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between principal and accomplice absent conspiracy, and the appreciation of treachery despite the spontaneity of the attack.