Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84316:60525&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:12:39+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 197546, March 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYANI DE LEON, ANTONIO DE LEON, DANILO DE LEON AND YOYONG DE LEON, Accused-Appellants.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYANI DE LEON, ANTONIO DE LEON, DANILO DE LEON AND YOYONG DE LEON, Accused-Appellants.
For review is the conviction for the crime of Murder of accused-appellants BAYANI DE LEON (Bayani), ANTONIO DE LEON (Antonio), DANILO DE LEON (Danilo), and YOYONG DE LEON (Yoyong) by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),1 in Criminal Case No. Q-02-113990, which Decision2 was affirmed with modifications by the Court of Appeals.
When arraigned, all the accused-appellants entered a plea of not guilty except accused Antonio. Thus, the RTC ordered a reverse trial in so far as Antonio is concerned.
The prosecution presented Erlinda A. Prasmo (Erlinda), wife of the victim, Emilio Prasmo (Emilio), who testified that on 2 March 2002, while they were walking along Sta. Lucia Street, Novaliches, on their way to RP Market, the accused-appellants, who are siblings, blocked their way. Accused-appellant Danilo, armed with a "sumpak", suddenly hit Emilio with a "bakal" while accused-appellant Antonio, who was armed with a "samurai", hacked Emilio in the forehead and struck him with a lead pipe at the right back portion of his legs and middle back portion of his torso. Accused-appellant Danilo then took Emilio's money in the amount of P7,000.00 and thereafter aimed the "sumpak" at the lower portion of Emilio's chest and fired the same, causing Emilio to slump on the ground. Accused-appellant Yoyong also hit Emilio with a lead pipe at the back of the neck and middle portion of his back.
As accused-appellants attacked and mauled Emilio, Erlinda, seeing her husband sprawled motionless on the ground, shouted for help, but nobody dared to help because accused-appellant Bayani, armed with a gun, was shouting "waking lalapit". The accused-appellants immediately left and Emilio was brought to the FEU Fairview Hospital, where Emilio died.
Gina Prasmo, Emilio's daughter, testified that at the time of the incident, she was at their house when she was informed of the news. She immediately went to the hospital where she learned that her father was already dead.
The testimony of Dr. Editha Martinez, a medico-legal officer of the Medico-Legal Division, Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City, was dispensed with because she was not the one who performed the autopsy on the cadaver of Emilio, but nevertheless, she identified such documents as Medico-Legal Report, Autopsy Report, Sketch of the head showing contusion, anatomical sketch showing the gunshot wound on the right portion of the chest, and the anatomical sketch of Emilio.
Carmelita de Leon (Carmelita), sister of the accused-appellants, testified that on the evening of 1 March 2002, she was at her house when her brothers, accused-appellants Danilo and Antonio, arrived. Upon observing that the heads of Antonio and Danilo were bleeding, she was informed that Emilio and his son, Edgardo Prasmo (Edgardo), attacked and mauled them, which caused their injuries. They reported the incident to a "tanod" in the barangay hall, Julio Batingaw, who told them to return in the afternoon so they could have a meeting with Emilio and Edgardo. When they returned, Emilio and Edgardo did not appear.
In the evening, at around 7 o'clock, fifteen (15) men carrying firearms, who included Jerry and Edgar, sons of Emilio, stormed her house looking for accused-appellants and threatened to kill her if she will not disclose their whereabouts. To support her testimony, the defense offered in evidence the medical certificates for the injuries sustained by accused-appellants Antonio and Danilo dated 1 March 2002 and the entry in the barangay blotter book dated 2 March 2002, about the mauling of accused-appellants Antonio and Danilo.
Jose de Leon, also known as Yoyong, was at the house of his brother-in-law, Willie Bandong, in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City to discuss the schedule of the "pabasa". He stayed there between 8:00 to 9:00 o'clock in the evening. Danilo, at that time, was with his mother in Pugad Lawin in Quezon City, to accompany his mother in doing her work as a "manghihilot". They left Pugad Lawin between 8:00 to 9:00 o'clock in the evening and went home. Bayani, a police civilian agent, at the night of the crime, was at the Police Station No. 5 in Fairview, Quezon City, talking to a police officer.
Antonio, in the morning of 2 March 2002, went to the barangay hall with his mother, Carmelita, and accused-appellant Danilo, to file a complaint against Emilio and Emilio's son, Edgardo, due to the mauling incident the previous evening. In the barangay hall, they were told to return in the afternoon so they could have a meeting with Emilio and Edgardo. They returned as told. Emilio and Edgardo did not.
On the way home, accused-appellant Antonio met Emilio, Erlinda, and Gina, Emilio's daughter, walking along A. Bonifacio Street. Emilio, upon seeing Antonio, immediately opened his jacket and tried to pull "something" out. Antonio then instantly tried to grab that "something" from Emilio. While grappling for the possession of that "something", which turned out to be a "sumpak", it fired.
According to the accused-appellants, Erlinda is not a credible witness and that her testimony is barren of probative value for having grave and irreconcilable inconsistencies, as opposed to accused-appellant Antonio's testimony which supposedly established the presence of all the essential requisites of self-defense. Accused-appellants referred to the inconsistency between Erlinda's court testimony and her Sinumpaang Salaysay. In her Sinumpaang Salaysay, she identified accused-appellant Antonio as the one who fired the "sumpak" at the lower chest of Emilio and took Erlinda's money. However, during her direct examination, she testified that it was accused-appellant Danilo who shot Emilio with a "sumpak" and thereafter, took his wallet.
Accused-appellants further argued that Erlinda could not have mistaken Danilo for Antonio, because she knew them both as they reside six (6) houses away from the house of the Prasmos and that accused-appellant Antonio has a distinctive feature — having a cleft palate or is "ngongo".
The RTC rejected accused-appellants' contentions. According to the RTC, Erlinda's narration of the incident is clear and convincing. While her testimony has some inconsistencies, they refer only to collateral and minor matters, which do not detract from the probative value of her testimony.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated May 25, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 81 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto with the added MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Danilo de Leon is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery defined under Article 293 and penalized under Article 294 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and seven (7) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and ten (10) days of prision mayor, as maximum. He is ordered to return to the heirs of Emilio Prasmo the cash of P7,000.00, representing the amount he took from said victim."
Before us is a reversed trial. As one of the accused-appellants, Antonio, pleaded self-defense, he admitted authorship of the crime. At this juncture, the burden of proof is upon the accused-appellants to prove with clear and convincing evidence the elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself,15 which the defense failed to discharge.
Accused-appellant Antonio cannot allege that it was Emilio who instigated the incident; that Emilio's fate was brought about by his own actuations. There is no sufficient provocation, nay, provocation at all in the act of pulling "something" out.
Lacerated wound, right parietal region, measuring 4x3 cm, 7 cm from the mid-sagittal line.
Contusion, right mandibular region, measuring 11x2 cm, 7 cm from the anterior midline.
Contusion, nasal region, measuring 3 x 2.5 cm, along the anterior midline.
Hematoma, left parietal region, measuring 5x4 cm, 8 cm from the anterior midline.
Contusion, left cheek, measuring 11x3 cm, 8 cm from the anterior midline.
Contusion, left lateral neck region, measuring 6x3 cm, 4 cm from the anterior midline.
Lacerated wound, occipital region, measuring 5 x 1.8 cm, bisected by the anterior midline.
There is a scalp hematoma at the right parieto-occipital region.
There are subdural, sub arachnoid hemorrhages at the right celebrum.
The right parietal bone is fractured.
Gunshot wound, right chest, measuring 2.6 cm x 2.3 cm, 4 cm from the anterior midline, 112 cm from the right heel, directed posteriorwards, downwards, and slightly lateralwards, fracturing the 6th and 7th ribs, lacerating the lower lobe of the right lung, diaphragm, right lobe of the liver with the deformed plastic wad embedded, right kidney with 2 lead pellets found embedded and the aorta with 3 pellets embedded thereat and 2 lead pellets found at the right thoracic cavity.
Contusion, right shoulder region, measuring 12x3 cm, 8 cm from the posterior midline.
Abrasion, right shoulder region, measuring 3.5 x 2 cm, 12 cm from the posterior midline.
Contusion, left shoulder region, measuring 4x2 cm, 6 cm from the posterior midline.
Contusion, left elbow, measuring 8x2 cm, 5 cm medial to its posterior midline.
The RTC did not find the accused guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide as charged in the Information, but found all the accused guilty of the crime of murder. According to the RTC, contrary to the charge of robbery with homicide, the accused is guilty of the crime of murder because the prosecution failed to establish the crime of robbery. The RTC, citing People v. Nimo,23 ratiocinated that in order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, robbery must be proven as conclusively as the killing itself.
In case at bar, it is undisputed the presence of all the elements of double jeopardy: (1) a valid Information for robbery with homicide was filed; (2) the Information was filed in the court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge; and (4) the RTC acquitted Danilo for the crime of robbery for lack of sufficient evidence, which amounted to an acquittal from which no appeal can be had. Indeed the conviction for murder was premised on the fact that robbery was not proven. The RTC Decision which found accused guilty of the crime of murder and not of robbery with homicide on the ground of insufficiency of evidence is a judgment of acquittal as to the crime of robbery alone.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-Appellants BAYANI DE LEON, ANTONIO DE LEON, DANILO DE LEON and YOYONG DE LEON are hereby declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused-appellants are ordered to pay Emilio Prasmo's heirs the following amounts: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for Emilio Prasmo's death, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality until fully paid.
Sereno, C. J., Chairperson, Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
1 Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Theresa L. De La Torre-Yadao, RTC Branch 81, Quezon City dated 25 May 2007. CA rollo, pp. 40-53.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring; Decision dated 15 July 2010. Id. at 150-172.
3 CA rollo, p. 40.
4 CA rollo, p. 51, citing People v. Maalat, G.R. No. 109814, 8 July 1997, 275 SCRA 214-215.
5 CA rollo, p. 52.
6 G.R. No. 92533, 5 October 1993, 227 SCRA 69.
7People v. Nimo, id. at 85-86.
8 CA rollo, p. 53.
13People v. Dagami, 394 Phil. 482, 488-489 (2000).
15People v. Placer, G.R.No. 181753, 9 October 2013, 707 SCRA 199, 207.
16People v. Nugas, G.R. No. 172606, 23 November 2011, 661 SCRA 159, 167-168.
17People v. Bayocot, 256 Phil. 27, 34-35 (1989).
18 CA rollo, p. 164.
19People v. Anies, 203 Phil. 332, 351 (1982).
20 CA rollo, pp. 47-48.
21People v. Canete, 350 Phil. 933, 943-944 (1998).
22People v. Lanuza, G.R. No. 188562, 24 August 2011, 656 SCRA 293, 300-301.
23People v. Nimo, supra note 6.
24 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Section 21.
25Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777, and G.R. No. 172792. 19 October 2011, 659 SCRA 590, 600.
26 1987 Constitution, Art. Ill, Section 21.
27People v. CA, G.R. No. 198589, 25 July 2012, 677 SCRA 575, 579.
28 Supra note 25, at 600.
29People v. Terrado, 580 Phil. 79, 87 (2008).

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