Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53054:gr-183457-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:56:22+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 183457 - People of the Philippines v. Roel Arbalate, et al.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROEL ARBALATE AND RAMIL ARBALATE (AL2), RUPERTO ARBALATE (DET.), Accused-Appellants.
That on or about the 7th day of July, 2002, at around 8:00 P.M., more or less, in Barangay Obayan, Municipality of Pinabacdao, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and abuse of superior strength, thereby qualifying the killing to murder, did, then and there, willfully unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, chase, strike with a piece of wood, stab and hack several times and behead one Gualberto T. Selemen with the use of bladed weapons which the accused have provided themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon the victim multiple stab and hack wounds which resulted to his instantaneous death.
Roel and Ramil Arbalate were able to evade arrest and remain at large. Hence, only Ruperto faced trial. During the arraignment, Ruperto pleaded not guilty.
WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, accused RUPERTO ARBALATE is found guilty of the charge of Murder punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all its accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00), to pay the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php 30,000.00) in exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
Ruperto Arbalate's detention is ordered to the Abuyog, Leyte Penal Farms as soon as possible.
The appeal has no merit.
The appellate and trial courts correctly rejected Ruperto's theory of self-defense. When he admitted authorship of the crime, the burden of proof shifted to him to establish all the elements of self-defense.12 He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused himself has admitted the killing.13 Thus, he must meet the requisites of self-defense, prescribed by Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, which are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
A: They were drinking at our house first, initially they were joking while drinking.
A: Because I can hear them joking and I can hear Jose Ragasa who was joking to my husband and asking if my husband is a jealous person.
A: While they were joking, I called the wives of these persons Ruperto Arbalate and Jose Ragasa, I can hear them, they were badly joking each other.
A: The wife of Ruperto accompanied me in going to our house and also the wife of Jose, as we arrived to our house my husband get out from our house and then Ruperto followed.
A: This Jose Ragasa who brought the liquor to our house, it was only 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
A: My husband was followed by Ruperto Arbalate to the other side of our house and struck him with a piece of wood.
A: Ruperto Arbalate pushed my husband and he [fell] on his buttocks.
A: Ruperto Arbalate was [fetched] by his wife and they went home.
A: The son of Ruperto Arbalate, Roel Arbalate went back.
A: As I went home not for long, I met Ruperto and Ramil.
A: Ramil and Roel are the sons of Ruperto Arbalate.
A: They went to our house: Ruperto Arbalate positioned himself at the other side at the back: Roel and Ramil passed by in our house near the stairs and Roel Arbalate position himself at the hilly (tayod) area near our house, while Ruperto and Ramil position themselves near our stairs.
A: My husband jumped by passing through the window and when he reached to the hilly (tayod) area near our house he was met by Roel and hacked him at the right shoulder.
A: He was hacked by a bolo.
A: Yes, Sir, I can.
A: They also met my husband because my husband ran towards our house.
A: Since he was also about to run, at first he was already injured he fell down in the rice field.
A: As my husband was lying in the field that's the time they hacked and stabbed my husband several times.
A: They used the same, they were armed with bolos.
A: Yes, Sir, all of them.
A: When my husband was already dead, Ramil beheaded my husband.
A: Ruperto Arbalate brought the head of my husband to the street.
It is evident that the incident began with mere jokes between Ruperto and the victim while they were intoxicated. When Ruperto struck the victim with a piece of wood, the victim retaliated by pushing Ruperto, further infuriating the latter. From Quijano's testimony, it was Ruperto who struck first, not the victim. Furthermore, after the victim pushed Ruperto, the fight was stopped and Ruperto went home. At this point, there was no threat or aggression to repel anymore, assuming there was one in the first place. The victim's action hardly constitutes unlawful aggression since it was a reaction to Ruperto's assault with a piece of wood. After that push, the victim ceased to attack him. Where the inceptual unlawful aggression of the victim had already ceased, the accused had no more right to kill the victim.16 To support a claim of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the victim be simultaneous with the attack on the accused, or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.17 This was not met in this case. Based on the testimonial evidence, there was a lapse of time between the altercation with the victim and his murder.
He failed to present any corroborating witness despite his assertion that there were other persons around when the incident happened. He did not even present his own wife to refute Quijano's testimony. Also, a defense witness who was subpoenaed, Jose Ragasa, was not presented upon discovery that he was hostile to the cause of the defense.18 Without any support to his testimony, Ruperto's claims of unlawful aggression and self-defense are self-serving.
A: I was able to see Ruperto Arbalate, Roel Arbalate and Ramil Arbalate carrying bolos.
A: Because they are residing in our barangay.
A: They were going to the house of Gualberto T. Selemen.
Q: So, when you saw them reached the house of Gualberto T. Selemen, what else did you see that happened, if any?
A: They lighted the face of Gualberto with a flashlight who was already outside of his house.
A: Yes. Sir, the flashlight was on.
A: He was already in the middle of the houses of Feliciano Dacallos and Gualberto Selemen.
A: Gualberto Selemen was hacked at his right hand.
A: It was Roel who hacked him.
A: Yes, sir, he was hit.
A: Gualberto Selemen ran towards the lower portion and he was met and stabbed by Ramil and it was also followed by a stabbing blow of Ruperto.
A: Yes, sir, he hit Gualberto.
A: He was hit on the stomach.
A: Yes, sir, he also hit Gualberto at his stomach.
A: Yes, sir, it was.
A: They chased Gualberto while running to the lower portion.
A: When they were still in the lower portion, I was not able to see them because it was already dark.
A: Because in that part when they were still in the vicinity of the house, it was well lighted.
Q: Thereafter, what else happened, if any?
A: After a lapse of about five (5) minutes, I saw Ruperto Arbalate carrying the head of Gualberto T. Selemen.
A: They came from the lower portion which is the rice field.
A: He was holding the hair.
(Witness demonstrating by holding his chin with his right thumb on the cheek and the remaining four fingers on the lower jaw by his right hand).
A: He was going to the road.
Ruperto's neighbor, Venancio Ocasla, also testified that on July 7, 2002 around 8:00 p.m., while he was fetching water in front of Ruperto's house, he saw the latter carrying the head of Selemen with his right hand. Ruperto rested the head on the ground with its right ear as its support. He also saw Ruperto carrying a bolo. He called a barangay tanod to pick up the head but it was a policeman who picked it up when the police arrived.20 Ocasla's testimony corroborates and follows Dacca's account. Both Ocasla and Dacca were impartial eyewitnesses who lack any motive to testify falsely against Ruperto.
In addition, we find Ruperto's theory of self-defense to be incredulous in light of the physical evidence, i.e., the nature, character, location, and extent of the wounds inflicted on the victim. The death certificate, the due execution of which was admitted by the defense; and the photographs of the victim show that he sustained multiple hacking and stab wounds. The cause of his death was severe hemorrhage secondary to irreversible shock. The wounds as well as the act of beheading the victim clearly belie self-defense.21 The Arbalates' purpose was to exact vengeance and nothing more. We agree with the trial court's pronouncement that "a fist delivered is not in proportion to the act of finally decapitating the deceased, coupled by the superiority of the aggressors who were all armed and who acted in unison."22 The court a quo also held that Ruperto's acts of carrying the head of the victim from the rice field to the highway and calling it the "head of an Abu Sayyaf" were acts of scoffing at the corpse of the deceased.
Anent the second assigned error, the appellate and trial courts correctly held that there is no homicide since there was the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superior strength is present when the attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage of their combined strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressors which is selected or taken advantage of by them in the commission of the crime.23 Such aggravating circumstance was perpetrated by Ruperto and his two sons in chasing the victim with bolos. The unarmed victim did not stand a chance against these three men.
According to the prosecution witness, Quijano, the Arbalates even positioned themselves strategically outside their house: Ruperto and Ramil stood by the stairs in front of the house while Roel waited at the back. The victim jumped out of the window but he was met by Roel who instantly hacked him. Thereafter, Ruperto and Ramil joined Roel in hacking the victim to death. The concurrence of a common purpose is apparent in cornering the victim in his house, chasing him to the rice field, and hacking him to death. Treachery and conspiracy were, therefore, present.
Although the presence of abuse of superior strength alone qualifies the killing to murder, in the presence of both treachery and abuse of superior strength, the latter is absorbed by treachery.24 We also find Ruperto's voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, since he gave himself up to the police when the latter arrived at his house.
As regards damages, we find it proper to award the following: PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity;26 PhP 75,000 as moral damages; and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages without proof or pleading. These amounts should be awarded when the accused is adjudged guilty of a crime covered by RA 7659 regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Thus, where the penalty prescribed by law is death or reclusion perpetua to death, the damages should be in the abovementioned amounts.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The September 17, 2007 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00162 finding accused-appellant Ruperto Arbalate guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused-appellant pay the heirs of the deceased PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 75,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages. Costs against accused-appellant.
1 Rollo, pp. 5-24. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar Padilla and concurred by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Stephen C. Cruz.
2 CA rollo, pp. 18-34. The Decision was penned by Judge Carmelita T. Cuares.
4 Id. at 93-125. Appellee's Brief.
12 People v. Astudillo, G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003, 401 SCRA 723, 734; citing People v. Obzunar, 333 Phil. 395, 416 (1996).
13 People v. Albarico, G.R. NOS. 108596-97, November 17, 1994, 238 SCRA 203, 211.
14 Manaban v. CA, G.R. No. 150723, July 11, 2006, 494 SCRA 503, 517; People v. Catbagan, G.R. NOS. 149430-32, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 535.
15 TSN, April 3, 2003.
16 People v. Caabay, G.R. NOS. 129961-62, August 25, 2003, 409 SCRA 486, 512 (citation omitted).
17 U.S. v. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56 (1901).
18 CA rollo, p. 28.
19 TSN, May 27, 2003, pp. 5-12.
20 CA rollo, p. 24.
22 CA rollo, p. 82.
23 People v. Mindac, G.R. No. 83030, December 14, 1992, 216 SCRA 558, 570 (citations omitted).
24 People v. Naag, G.R. No. 123860, January 20, 2000, 322 SCRA 716, 739 (citation omitted).
25 Astudillo, supra note 12, at 739; citing People v. Saure, G.R. No. 135848, March 12, 2002, 379 SCRA 128.
26 People v. Brodett, G.R. No. 170136, January 18, 2008, 542 SCRA 88, 94; citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 171272, June 7, 2007, 523 SCRA 433; People v. Buban, G.R. No. 170471, May 11, 2007, 523 SCRA 118; and People v. Taan, G.R. No. 169432, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 219.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.