Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82458:56331&catid=1575&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:24:17+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTERO GAMEZ Y BALTAZAR, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTERO GAMEZ Y BALTAZAR, Accused-Appellant.
For review1 is the Decision2 dated May 25, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00671 which affirmed the Judgment3 dated May 9, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Burauen, Leyte, Branch 15, convicting and sentencing accused-appellant Antero Gamez y Baltazar (accused-appellant) to reclusion perpetua for the crime of parricide.
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2004, in the Municipality of Burauen, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and wound one APOLINARIO GAMEZ y AMORILLO, his father, with the use of a long bladed weapon (sundang) and sickle (sarad) which the accused provided himself for the purpose, thereby hitting and inflicting upon Apolinario Gamez y Amorillo multiple hacking and incised wounds on the different parts of his body which were the direct and approximate cause of his death.
The accused-appellant and 69-year old Apolinario had a less than ideal father and son relationship with the former claiming that the latter did not treat him well when he was a child. Their relationship got more strained when Apolinario meddled with the accused-appellant’s personal relationship with his wife. Apolinario apparently told the accused-appellant that his wife was being unfaithful. The unsolicited information irked the accused-appellant.
On August 21, 2004, the accused-appellant had a drinking spree in his house at Barangay Gamay, Burauen, Leyte, with his two brothers, Nicolas and Cornelio from 12 noon until 3:00 p.m. As he was about to go out of the kitchen door, the accused-appellant saw Apolinario standing at the doorway with a long bolo. Apolinario appeared to be drunk.
To prevent any commotion, Nicolas held Apolinario but he was able to free himself from his son’s grip. The accused-appellant then spoke to Apolinario: “I think that you are looking for me and I believe it is since last night.” An argument ensued between them. In order not to prolong the spat, the accused-appellant and his brothers took their father to his nipa hut about 500 meters away. But before the accused-appellant could leave, he got into another argument with Apolinario.
The accused-appellant then set out to the place where he gathered tuba while his brothers went back to his house. After gathering tuba and tethering his carabao, the accused-appellant proceeded home. He met Apolinario along a pathway. With no one to pacify them, they decided to resume their quarrel.
The accused-appellant first remarked: “Father, what are the words that you uttered?” to which Apolinario responded, “It is better if one of us will perish.” Apolinario then instantaneously hacked the accused-appellant with a long bolo hitting him twice on the head for which he sustained a 5-centimeter long and scalp-deep incised wound with fracture of the underlying bone and another 5-cm long incised wound on the frontal right portion of his head.
The accused-appellant fell to his knees as Apolinario delivered another blow which the former was able to parry by raising his left arm. The accused-appellant was wounded on the left 3rd interdigital space posterior to his palm.
The accused-appellant then held Apolinario’s hands, grabbed the bolo and used the same to hack the latter several times, the count of which escaped the accused-appellant’s consciousness as he was already dizzy. The accused-appellant thereafter left the scene and went home. His brother brought him to the hospital upon seeing that his head was teeming with blood. He was hospitalized for six (6) days before he was taken to the municipal hall by the police officers.
The rebuttal evidence for the prosecution, on the other hand, principally consisted of the testimony of Maura Anadia (Maura), Apolinario’s daughter and the accused-appellant’s sister. According to Maura, at around 4:30 p.m. of August 21, 2004, she was with her father at their house located at Barangay Gamay, Burauen, Leyte when his elder brother, the accused-appellant, arrived. He was carrying a long bolo and a scythe was tucked on his waist.
Frightened, Maura ran away and hid at a grassy portion near the house. She then saw her father flee but the accused-appellant gave him a chase. Apolinario was able to run for about 20 m before the accused-appellant was able to catch up.
The accused-appellant then hacked the unarmed Apolinario on the right side of his head using the bolo. Apolinario fell down and the accused-appellant finished him off by slashing his neck with the scythe. Maura thereafter left to report the incident to the police.
In its Judgment9 dated May 9, 2006, the RTC found that both the prosecution and the defense deliberately withheld vital details of the incident. The prosecution did not reveal that the initial unlawful aggression was committed by Apolinario who, based on medical records, hacked the accused-appellant in the parietal area of his head. The defense, on the other hand, concealed that accused-appellant pursued the victim after the latter fled. These findings completed the sequence of the incident and revealed that the accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense is unmeritorious.
WHEREFORE, premises considered[,] this Court finds the accused ANTERO GAMEZ y Baltazar GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Parricide penalized under Art. 246 of the Revised Penal Code and considering the presence of one (1) mitigating circumstance without any aggravating to offset it, hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA; to pay the Heirs of Apolinario Gamez Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death and to pay the costs of this suit.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the assailed May 9, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Burauen, Leyte, Branch 15, in CRIM. CASE NO. Bn-05-03-4125, is hereby AFFIRMED with modification. Aside from the civil indemnity already awarded, the accused is also hereby directed to pay the heirs of Apolinario Gamez the amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages in accordance with the recent jurisprudence.
The accused-appellant manifested before the Court that in the present review, he is adopting the arguments contained in his Brief filed before the CA whereby he argued that his guilt for the crime of parricide was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in ruling that he failed to prove self-defense.
The Court affirms the accused-appellant’s conviction.
The arguments proffered by the accused-appellant essentially attack the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of the prosecution’s principal witness, Maura, and its ruling that the same satisfactorily repudiate his claim of self-defense.
We see no compelling reason to depart from the foregoing tenets especially in view of the accused-appellant’s failure to identify significant details, which if considered, will alter the outcome of the trial court’s judgment and the affirmation accorded it by the CA. At any rate, an examination of the records at hand shows that the factual basis of accused-appellant’s plea of self-defense cannot relieve him from criminal liability.
Here, the accused-appellant, miserably failed to discharge his burden of proving that unlawful aggression justifying self-defense was present when he killed Apolinario.
The aggression initially staged by Apolinario was not of the continuous kind as it was no longer present when the accused-appellant injured Apolinario. As testified by the accused-appellant himself, he was able to grab the bolo from Apolinario. From that point on, the aggression initially staged by Apolinario ceased to exist and the perceived threat to the accused-appellant’s life was no longer attendant.
Hence, the accused-appellant was no longer acting in self-defense, when he, despite having already disarmed Apolinario, ran after the latter for about 20 m and then stabbed him. The accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense is further negated by the fatal incision on Apolinario’s neck that almost decapitated his head, a physical evidence which corroborates Maura’s testimony that after stabbing Apolinario with the bolo, the accused-appellant pulled out the scythe on his waist and used the same to slash Apolinario’s neck. The use of a weapon different from that seized from the victim and the nature of the injury inflicted show the accused-appellant’s determined resolve to kill Apolinario.
[A]lthough, it is supported by the medical report, that the [accused-appellant] was indeed initially attacked by the victim, the act of the [accused-appellant] of going after the victim, who was already running away from the [accused-appellant] after the latter has gained possession of the weapon, is anathema to the self-defense theory invoked by the [accused appellant].
In fine, there is no justifiable cause exempting the accused-appellant from criminal liability and the courts a quo were correct in convicting him for parricide.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.22 Here, it is an undisputed fact that Apolinario was the accused-appellant’s father.
1Pursuant to People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, 653-658.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 73-81.
3 Issued by Executive Judge Yolanda U. Dagandan; id. at 10-17.
6 As culled from accused-appellant’s Brief filed before the CA, id. at 27-30; and from the narration of facts in the RTC Judgment dated May 9, 2006, id. at 12-13 and CA Decision dated May 25, 2011, id. at 74-75.
7 His testimony was dispensed with on account of the admission by the defense of the authenticity and due execution of the medical certificate he issued for the victim, Apolinario Gamez; id. at 11.
8 As culled from the appellee’s Brief filed before the CA, id. at 54-65; and from the narration of facts in the RTC Judgment dated May 9, 2006, id. at 12-13 and CA Decision dated May 25, 2011, id. at 76.
13People of the Philippines v. Ronald Credo aka “Ontog”, Randy Credo and Rolando Credo y Buenaventura, G.R. No. 197360, July 3, 2013.
14People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665 , September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 804, 813.
15Simon A. Flores v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.
16People v. Concillado, G.R. No. 181204, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 363, 379.
17People v. Paycana, Jr., 574 Phil. 780, 787 (2008).
18People v. Comillo, Jr., G.R. No. 186538, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 756, 772.
19Simon A. Flores v. People of the Philippines, supra note 15.
21 CA rollo, pp. 79-80.
22People v. Paycana, Jr., supra note 17, at 789.
23 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
24 See People v. Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 510, 521.
25 See People v. Dejillo, G.R. No. 185005, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 537, 556, citing People v. Tadah, G.R. No. 186226, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 744, 747.
26People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 03, 2011, 658 SCRA 367, 381.
27People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 364, 374.
29 Supra note 24, at 522.
31 Supra note 24, at 523.

References: v. 
 v. 
 Art. 246
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.