Today

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

n appreciating evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of murder, and in evaluating claims of self-defense, vo

of Pasig, Metro Manila, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 164,2 in Criminal Case No. 85155, convicting accused Rogelio Deop

ows:

o Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a fan knife (balisong
ent parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which directly caused his death.

ty to the charge.4

The Facts

According to the Prosecution

transcript of stenographic notes, are as follows:5

ose Street, Barrio Kapasigan, Pasig, Metro Manila, Dante Deopante was having a conversation with his friend Renato Molina when t
song) from his right back pants pocket. Sensing danger, Renato immediately called out to Dante and told the latter to flee the place. A
d in a lot between Alkalde Jose and Pariancillo Streets. Appellant and victim grappled with each other and both fell on the ground. Ap
lant stood up and fled the scene leaving Dante mortally wounded. Bystanders milling around Pariancillo Street then rushed victim to

telephone call from the Rizal Medical Center informing them that a stabbing victim has been brought to said hospital for treatment. P
ent of Nestor Deopante indicating that appellant stabbed the victim. Renato refused to give his sworn statement to the police, but ins

o and two (2) other police officers went to the house of appellant located at No. 12 Alkalde Jose Street, Barrio Kapasigan, Pasig, Metr
ned his innocence throughout the investigation. Patrolman Crispin Pio recovered a fan knife from appellant measuring around ten (10

ese wounds, two (2) were stab wounds (Wound Nos. 2 & 3) and the rest mere abrasions. Dr. Emmanuel Aranas, the medico-legal of
ther declared that Wound No. 2, a stab wound located at the left side of the chest, lacerated the diaphragm, liver (left lobe) and stom
e it showed minute traces of human blood. (pp. 7-8, t.s.n., April 19, 1991; p. 17. t.s.n., May 30, 1991)

ied on the results of the autopsy, the other witnesses included Manolo Angeles and Renato Molina, who gave eyewitness accounts o
accused, he found and recovered from him a 10-inch fan knife which he submitted to the crime lab for examination. Alfonso Reyes, b
opante had threatened to kill him (Dante). He testified that his office kept a logbook of all the incidents that happened in the barangay

Version of the Defense

n, the defense claimed that the fatal injuries inflicted by accused-appellant upon the victim were done in self-defense.7 The defense pr

, Pasig, Metro Manila, while the appellant was allegedly on his way home he was seen by his nephew, the victim (Dante Deopante) a
nd the said appellant ran away and (was) pursued by the victim and Renato Molina. The appellant was overtaken by the victim by hol
way from Dante Deopante. After he (appellant) wrested the knife from the victim, they continued rolling over and over the ground and
n on his right leg, left knee and left hand (sic). The said appellant was treated by one Dr. Leonides Pappa on January 11, 1991, and is
the victim for being a drug addict when he was still a policeman and member of the Police Department of Pasig. Renato Molina elude

of the Pasig Police Department but was discharged for having been absent without leave, by reason of a complaint filed against him
s left hand was completely severed at the wrist when it was hacked off by his brother Nestor Deopante.

The Trial Court's Ruling

der, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:

Y beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as charged; and therefore hereby imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpe
osts.

The Issues

nder entry no. 0097, page 58 (logbook) as a basis in holding the commission of the offense with evident premeditation.
y surrender and his physical condition.

ecution's witnesses and its biased character and wanting of credibility (sic).

imposition of penalty.

The Court's Ruling

First Issue: Evident Premeditation

be proven before evident premeditation can be appreciated. These are: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (
d the execution thereof, to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Mere lapse of time is not enough, however,

gree with appellant's contention that the lower court based its finding of evident premeditation on the victim's report to the barangay c
proven by the testimony of the barangay captain, Alfonso Reyes, as to the report made by the deceased about the threat on his life, t
port and the killing (January 10, 1991) constituted a sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the e
timony of Renato Molina, friend of the victim since childhood, who was present from the inception to the culmination of the assault lau

a) and Dante Deopante were conversing at Alkalde Jose St., Pasig, Metro Manila when the accused Rogelio Deopante arrived. He to

d a previous (sic) misunderstanding and the accused always threatened Dante Deopanteafter the latter testified against the accused f

ying a fan knife in his back pocket. He saw it because the place was lighted as there as a lamp post.

xxx xxx xxx

way and was approaching them, he immediately warned his childhood friend and victim Dante Deopante to run away which the latter
raversed a short distance, he stopped and looked back and saw the accused chasing his victim and nephew until the former caught u

topped when his nephew took off and ran away from him. The latter did so because he knew in his heart that his uncle was about to

him for a distance and all the while he could have stopped and go home to his residence situated only a few meters away.

e did not, but on the contrary, when they both fell and rolled on the ground, he grappled with his victim and at the very first opportune
ey.

r that he clung to this determination to kill Dante Deopante when he could have stopped at anytime between the moment that his nep

e case at bar is therefore conclusive.

Second Issue: Voluntary Surrender and Physical Defect

as Mitigating Circumstances?
rrender in this case. In order to appreciate voluntary surrender by an accused, the same must be shown to have been "spontaneous
e trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. In the absence of any of these reasons, and in the event that th
d in this case that there was no conscious effort on the part of the accused — who was fetched from his house by police officers to g
ng the investigation where he professed his innocence. The fact alone that he did not resist but went peacefully with the lawmen does

ot surrender to the police. In fact, the evidence adduced shows that it was the police authorities who came to the factory looking for hi
already approaching him, accused-appellant did not offer any resistance and peacefully went with them. To be sure, no surrender wa

that he should automatically be credited with the mitigating circumstance contained in paragraph 8, Article 13 of the Revised Penal C
n extent that he did not have complete freedom of action, consequently resulting in diminution of the element of voluntariness.15 Such
e his handicap, appellant nevertheless managed to attack, overcome and fatally stab his victim.

pple with and overcome his two-handed prey. This was answered by the testimony of Renato Molina who revealed that at the time the
ny16 is as follows:

versing with Dante Deopante and you ask (asked) Dante Deopante to run away, why did you ask Dante Deopante to run away?

ack.

ket, to whom are you referring to?

xxx xxx xxx

sic) his pocket?

alisong in hand. Clearly, the fact that he had only one hand in no way limited his freedom of action to commit the crime.

Third Issue: Self-defense

ense to be appreciated. The accused must prove that there was unlawful aggression by the victim, that the means employed to prev
, "the burden of the evidence that he acted in self-defense was shifted to the accused-appellant. It is hornbook doctrine that when se
his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved

claim of self-defense cannot be sustained. The self-serving and unsupported allegation of appellant that he wrested the knife away fr
ot inspire belief, when contrasted with the positive and categorical eyewitness accounts of Renato Molina and Manolo Angeles that ap

(Testimony of Manolo Angeles)

mber if there was an unusual incident that happened at that time?

ante Deopante(I saw Rogelio Deopante chasing Dante Deopante with intention of stabbing).

e the victim was chased by the accused?

d from the accused?

abbed?

gelio Deopante stabbed him.19

(Testimony of Renato Molina)

e was then carrying?

xxx xxx xxx

e used that Balisong or fan knife in stabbing the victim, only I did not know how many stabs he made on the victim (but witness demo

osecution's evidence conclusively showing that it was appellant who was the unlawful aggressor, appellant's claims of self-defense m
im which must clearly be shown." 21 We agree with the finding of the trial court that:
ng his nephew and victim Dante Deopante. Only, by way of avoidance, the accused stated that while he and his nephew were rolling

ourt.

opened it while at the same time grappling with his uncle while both were rolling on the ground.

mains unsupported by the evidence. Even the accused's own witness and friend for a long time Benito Carrasco who professed that h
at the accused manage to wrest it away or else the defense would certainly underscore such an event and made much of it during his

nced that the accused did not act in self-defense in killing the former. "It is an oft-repeated rule that the presence of a large number of
an obviously helpless and vulnerable position. Even assuming arguendo that it was the deceased who had initiated the attack and ac
s unlawful assault.

Forth Issue: Credibility of Witnesses

of witnesses, the same not being tainted by any arbitrariness or palpable error. "Jurisprudence teaches us that the findings of the tria
hich, if properly considered, might affect the result of the case. The trial judge's evaluation of the witness' credibility deserves utmost
valid reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying on the case.25

edence to the testimonies of Manolo Angeles and Renato Molina. As aptly stated by it:

ution witnesses Manolo Angeles and Renato Molina.

e uncle of the full blood of his wife, being the daughter of the sister of the accused. He would not dare incur the wrath of his wife and h

as the accused and the victim, the latter being his childhood friend.

and testify falsely against him. In fact, he was very reluctant to testify and it look coercive process of the Court to bring him to the witn

ed by the accused himself during the trial so that this witness' testimony is well worth considering.26

son of the accused, which definitely tends to negate the theory of self-defense.

cused who mentioned in passing during the course of his testimony that when informed of an on-going quarrel involving his father, he
g a weapon with his left hand so much so that he went back home and informed his mother about the matter and he was instructed to

elievable.

and in immediate danger of being stabbed and possibly killed, would instinctively and intuitively rush in, come (to) succor and render

cousin were grappling on the ground and seeing that his father had a knife in his hand and had the upper hand as well as in control o

Fifth Issue: Incomplete Self-defense

de which provides for imposition of a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law where the killing "is not wholly e
equired to justify a criminal act or exempt from liability are present. Such is not the situation in the case at bar. Unlawful aggression is
ng circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. When it is combined with another element of self-defense
y shown that appellant was the aggressor.

arillo of the crime of murder and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the payment to the victim's heirs of civil indem

148 SCRA 98, 109, February 27, 1987, citing Padilla, Criminal Law, 1979 ed., p. 449.

vs. Devaras, 205 SCRA 676, February 3, 1992, and People vs. Lee, 204 SCRA 900 December 20, 1991.

93.

oniao, 217 SCRA 653, January 27, 1993, and People vs. Apolinario, 58 Phil. 586, October 18, 1933.
e vs. Delgado, 182 SCRA 343, February 15, 1990; People vs. Canete, 175 SCRA 111; July 5, 1989; People vs. Agapinay, 186 SCRA

o, 193 SCRA 571, February 6, 1991, and People vs. Tongson, 194 SCRA 257, February 19, 1991.

13, 1992,citing People vs. Lutanez, 192 SCRA 588, December 21, 1990, and People vs. Tasarra, 192 SCRA 266, December 10, 199