PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL AGUILAR Y AMISTUSO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Aguilar versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Noel Aguilar y Amistuso, a criminal appeal from a conviction for two killings that took place in a Malabon motel in the early morning of December 2, 1994. The accused admitted causing the deaths of two women but claimed self-defense, and the prosecution pressed for murder on the strength of treachery. The case matters because it is a compact teaching vehicle on three things every reviewee must command: the burden of an accused who pleads self-defense, the strict quantum of proof required to appreciate treachery, and the rule that damages must be proved and not merely alleged.

Procedural History

The accused was charged in two separate Informations with two counts of murder before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder, sentenced him to two prison terms of reclusion perpetua with all accessory penalties, and ordered him to pay each set of heirs 50,000 pesos as indemnity for the loss of life, actual damages for death and burial expenses, and 50,000 pesos as moral damages. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors against the trial court's findings on how the incident began, on self-defense, and on treachery.

Facts

Between three and six o'clock in the morning of December 2, 1994, the accused and two companions were drinking at the Virgo Pubhouse along MacArthur Highway in Potrero, Malabon, attended by two female receptionists, Helen Revilla and Angelaida Pascua. At about six o'clock the accused paid a bill of 587 pesos, and Helen told a waiter she was leaving to sleep. A taxi driver waiting nearby then saw Helen, Angelaida, and a male companion walk to the Lampara Hotel, some fifteen to twenty meters away. The roomboys guided the three to room 239.

A short while later the male companion hurried out of the room past the counter toward MacArthur Highway, looking pale. A roomboy went to room 239 to clean it and came out shouting about the bloodied bodies of Helen and Angelaida on the floor. Another roomboy tried to chase the man but could not find him. In the course of the investigation the police found a wallet containing the identification card of Noel Aguilar, and the taxi driver and the roomboys identified the photograph as the man who had checked in with the two women. The accused was later arrested in Bahay Toro, Quezon City. The autopsy showed Helen, six months pregnant, sustained fourteen stab wounds, and Angelaida sustained twenty nine, and both died of multiple stab wounds.

The accused gave a different account. He said that being too drunk, the two receptionists brought him to what he thought were their sleeping quarters, and that he was awakened by a sharp object pressed near his armpit while someone tried to take his wallet containing 4,000 pesos. He said he wrested the instrument and swung it in all directions, and only when he turned on the lights did he see that his supposed attackers were Helen and Angelaida. The trial court rejected this version and convicted him of two counts of murder.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused proved self-defense by clear and convincing evidence, particularly the element of unlawful aggression.
• Whether or not the killings were attended by treachery, qualifying them to murder.
• Whether or not the awards of moral damages and actual damages may stand.

Applicable Provisions

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court applies in convicting the accused of the lesser felony, provides:

Article 249. Homicide. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the fallback felony once treachery is not proved, and it fixes the penalty the Court ultimately imposes.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines the crime of murder as charged, provides:

Article 248. 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 perpetua 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.

Treachery is the qualifying circumstance the prosecution invoked, and its failure is what reduces the crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that where an accused admits causing the death but invokes self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance; otherwise, having admitted the killing, conviction is inescapable. Self-defense requires the concurrence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack, and absence of provocation on the part of the defender. The Court stressed that self-defense must rest on proof of unlawful aggression, which presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely an intimidating attitude. The accused failed on this element: his account of a sharp object poked near his armpit was a self-serving statement. He also failed to show reasonable necessity, since the victims suffered multiple stab wounds while he presented not a single wound, and his claim of a wound on his finger was uncorroborated by any medical certificate.

On the second issue, the Court defined treachery as the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. The Court held that due to the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery must be proved as clearly as the crime itself, and cannot be established from mere conjectures. Absent any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated. The number of stab wounds and the location of some on the victims' backs do not necessarily imply treachery, and it was not shown that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted such manner to avoid risk to himself. The Court resolved the doubt in favor of the accused and held him guilty only of homicide, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance.

On the third issue, the Court deleted the awards of moral and actual damages. Moral damages must rest upon sufficient proof of physical suffering, mental anguish, and similar injury, and nothing in the records supported the grant. Actual damages cannot rest on the bare allegation of the heirs; the expenses for interment were not substantiated by competent evidence such as receipts.

Doctrine

First, self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof; having admitted the killing, the accused bears the burden, and failure to prove unlawful aggression by clear and convincing evidence makes conviction inescapable. Second, treachery must be proved as clearly as the crime itself and cannot be inferred from mere conjectures, the number of wounds, or their location; absent proof of how the attack began and unfolded, the doubt is resolved in favor of the accused, and the crime is homicide under Article 249, not murder under Article 248. Third, moral damages require proof of suffering, and actual damages require competent evidence such as receipts; bare allegations will not sustain either award.

Disposition

The Court modified the trial court's decision, finding Noel Aguilar y Amistuso guilty of two counts of homicide and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and eight months of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum for each count, sustaining the 50,000 peso indemnity for each set of heirs, and deleting the awards of moral and actual damages.

Remember This

Memorize the line that treachery must be proved as clearly as the crime itself and cannot be established from mere conjectures. Examiners use this case to test the reduction of murder to homicide when treachery is not proved, and the rule that damages must be substantiated by evidence.