Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50123:gr-157201-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:48:44+00:00

Document:
NEMROD GOTIS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
In order to determine the sufficiency of a provocation for the purpose of mitigating a crime, one must look into the act constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person provoked, and the place and time when the provocation is made.1 In the present case, a finding that the act of the victim did not constitute unlawful aggression does not automatically negate the attendant circumstance of sufficient provocation.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 seeks the annulment of the August 30, 2002 Decision3 and February 12, 2003 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 22536 entitled People of the Philippines v. Nemrod Gotis. The assailed Decision affirmed the October 29, 1997 Decision5 of the Irosin, Sorsogon Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, convicting petitioner Nemrod of the crime of homicide. The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Serafin was brought to a hospital in Irosin, Sorsogon, but he eventually died during treatment.
Petitioner admitted having killed Serafin. He, however, interposed the justifying circumstance of self-defense. He claimed that he hit Serafin merely to defend himself against the latter's attack.
WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment in Crim. Case No. 676 finding the accused Nahom Gotis and Nemrod Gotis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide as defined in Article 249, of the Revised Penal Code. With respect to Nahom Gotis[,] the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and defense of relative should be appreciated in his favor. Applying the provisions of Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code[,] the court hereby sentences the accused Nahom Gotis to suffer imprisonment of an indeterminate [s]entence of six (6) months of arresto mayor maximum as the minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum as the maximum. The accused Nemrod Gotis is to be credited the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation and voluntary surrender and applying the provisions of Article 64 (5) of the Revised Penal Code[,] the said accused is to suffer imprisonment for an [i]ndeterminate [s]entence of [f]our (4) years [and] two (2) months of prision correccional medium as the minimum to [t]en (10) years of prision mayor medium as the maximum. The accused Nahom Gotis shall jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Serafin Gotis the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the cost.
Nahom applied for probation which was granted by the trial court. Petitioner, on the other hand, appealed to the CA.
In the present case, petitioner maintains that the CA failed to appreciate that he had acted in self-defense, and thus, he should not be held liable for Serafin's death. However, petitioner failed to show that the CA's findings of fact should be disregarded. The factual findings are borne out by the records and are supported by substantial evidence.
Unlawful aggression by the victim is a primordial element of self-defense; without it, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.22 To be appreciated, the unlawful aggression must be a continuing circumstance or must have been existing at the time the defense is made.23 A person making a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor when the unlawful aggression has ceased.24 In this case, the trial and appellate courts correctly held that while Serafin initially attacked petitioner with a bolo, the unlawful aggression already ceased when the latter was able to go inside his brother's house and the former ran away. At this point, there was no longer any danger on his life; thus, there was also no necessity to "defend" himself by pursuing and attacking Serafin.
The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling explaining that sufficient provocation is not compatible with the finding that petitioner did not act in self-defense. By faulting petitioner for inflicting injuries on the victim after the latter had run away, the CA likened sufficient provocation with unlawful aggression. The CA erred.
As an element of self-defense, unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger of the attack, from the victim.25 On the other hand, as a mitigating circumstance, sufficient provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the victim adequate enough to excite a person to commit a wrong, which is accordingly proportionate in gravity.26 Notably, while an act cannot be considered an unlawful aggression for the purpose of self-defense, the same act can be considered as sufficient provocation for the purpose of mitigating the crime.
In Pepito v. CA,27 the victim, before the killing, had challenged the accused's family with a bolo and an "indian pana." After this attack, the victim went home. The accused thereafter grabbed a bolo, pursued the victim, and killed him. The Court did not consider the victim's act as an unlawful aggression for the purpose of self-defense. However, such was considered a provocation sufficient to mitigate the crime. People v. Ubaldo28 had likewise disregarded the violent act of the victim before the shooting incident as an unlawful aggression, but appreciated it as a mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation.
In the present case, petitioner was merely pacifying Serafin when the latter suddenly attempted to hack the former. Although petitioner evaded the attack, Serafin's act was enough provocation to anger petitioner and cause him to strike back.
Petitioner is hereby found guilty of Homicide, and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prisiÃ³n correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prisiÃ³n mayor as maximum, and to pay the heirs of Serafin Gotis PhP 50,000 as indemnity for his death and PhP 3,000 as actual damages.
1 L. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book One 265 (13th ed., 1993).
3 Id. at 85-95. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Conchita Carpio Morales (now a Member of this Court) and Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
14 Supra note 5, at 37-38.
15 Supra note 3, at 91.
19 Supra note 2, at 16; original in uppercase.
21 See Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. 147839, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 286; Republic v. Estonilo, G.R. No. 157306, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 265; Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corp. v. Amante, G.R. No. 112526, March 16, 2005, 453 SCRA 432.
22 Baxinela v. People, G.R. No. 149652, March 24, 2006, 485 SCRA 331, 342-343; Toledo v. People, G.R. No. 158057, September 24, 2004, 439 SCRA 94, 109; People v. Cajurao, G.R. No. 122767, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 207, 214.
23 People v. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003, 403 SCRA 92, 100; citing People v. More, G.R. No. 128820, December 23, 1999, 321 SCRA 538, 545 and People v. Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002, 383 SCRA 15, 20.
24 People v. Cajurao, supra note 22, at 215.
25 Supra note 1, at 148.
27 G.R. No. 119942, July 8, 1999, 310 SCRA 128.
28 G.R. No. 129389, October 17, 2001, 367 SCRA 432.
29 G.R. No. 151978, July 14, 2004, 434 SCRA 467.

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