Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    People v. Regalario

    Uploaded by

    Roger Pascual Cuaresma
    The accused, who were all barangay officials and related, were charged with murdering Rolando Sevilla at a barangay event. Witnesses testified that the accused repeatedly hit the victim with sticks until he stopped moving, then tied him up and watched him die. The court found no evidence of self-defense or defense of a relative. It also found conspiracy and aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no errors in the lower courts' rulings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    People v. Regalario

    Uploaded by

    Roger Pascual Cuaresma
    85 views3 pages
    The accused, who were all barangay officials and related, were charged with murdering Rolando Sevilla at a barangay event. Witnesses testified that the accused repeatedly hit the victim with sticks until he stopped moving, then tied him up and watched him die. The court found no evidence of self-defense or defense of a relative. It also found conspiracy and aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no errors in the lower courts' rulings.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused, who were all barangay officials and related, were charged with murdering Rolando Sevilla at a barangay event. Witnesses testified that the accused repeatedly hit the victim with sticks until he stopped moving, then tied him up and watched him die. The court found no evidence of self-defense or defense of a relative. It also found conspiracy and aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no errors in the lower courts' rulings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    85 views3 pages

    People v. Regalario

    Uploaded by

    Roger Pascual Cuaresma
    The accused, who were all barangay officials and related, were charged with murdering Rolando Sevilla at a barangay event. Witnesses testified that the accused repeatedly hit the victim with sticks until he stopped moving, then tied him up and watched him die. The court found no evidence of self-defense or defense of a relative. It also found conspiracy and aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no errors in the lower courts' rulings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 3

    People of the Philippines v. Ramon Regalario, et al.

    G.R. No. 174483

    March 31, 2009

    Leonardo-De Castro, J.

    CRIME CHARGED – the accused-appellants Ramon, Marciano, Sotero, Bienvenido, and Noel were
    charged with HOMICIDE --- after a reinvestigation of the case the prosecutors filed an amended
    information charging the accused-appellants with murder.

    FACTS:

    All the accused, all surnamed Regalario, are barangay officials of Natasan, Libon, Albay, and related to
    one another by consanguinity. Noel is not an official and is the son of Marciano.

    On the night of February 22, 1997, a dance and singing contest was being held in the barangay pavilion
    of Natasan, Libon, Albay. At around 10 pm, Rolando Sevilla (+) and Armando Poblete were enjoying the
    festivities when the appellant Sotero approached them. To avoid trouble, the two distanced themselves.
    Nevertheless, a commotion ensued. Appellants Sotero and Bienvenido were seen striking Rolando (+)
    several times with their respective nightsticks (bahi).

    Because of the blows, Rolando fell in a sitting position. He got up and ran away in the direction of the
    hose of appellant Mariano, the barangay captain. He was chased by Bienvenido and Sotero and when
    they got near the house of Marciano he was stopped by appellant Ramon. At this point Marciano and his
    son Noel got out of the house, Noel was seen carrying a 7-inch knife.

    Armed with nightsticks, they hit the victim until he slumped on the ground face down. In that position,
    Marciano punched Rolando in the jaw. When Rolando is no longer moving, Marciano ordered them to
    kill him. Then, he ordered them again to tie him up – Bienvenido with the help of Sotero tied the neck,
    hands, and feet of the deceased with a nylon rope. The rest of the group just stood at the gruesome
    event watching.

    On the morning of February 23, 1997, Cynthia the wife of Rolando was informed of her husband’s death.
    She went to the town’s police station to report it but however the appellant Marciano already reported
    an incident to the police with a different version that it was the victim Rolando who shot appellant
    Ramon and that Sevilla allegedly still alive was placed under the custody of the barangay tanods.

    According to the autopsy report of Dr. Cerillo, the cause of death of Rolando is severe blood loss
    secondary to a stab wound and multiple lacerated wounds, probably secondary to intracranial
    hemorrhage.

    DEFENSE STORY:

    During the public dance and singing contest held in their barangay, a fire broke out in the toilet of the
    Day Care Center. Then a commotion happened wherein Rolando Sevilla suddenly emerged from the
    group of tanods and fired a shot to Ramon Regalario. To pacify Ronaldo, Ramon struck him in his head
    with his nightstick and continued to strike him with blows.
    Moreover, according to Bienvenido, they were taught in their training seminar to just use a rope instead
    of handcuffs because they could not be supplied with it. So, he tied the hands and feet of Rolando for
    fear that he might be able to escape.

    RTC: Murder

    CA: Affirmed the decision of the Trial Court

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the lower court erred in not finding that the deceased was killed in self-defense
    and/or defense of relative.

    RULING:

    NO!

    When self-defense is invoked by an accused charged with murder or homicide he necessarily owns up
    to the killing but may escape criminal liability by proving that it was justified and that he incurred no
    criminal liability therefor. Hence, the three (3) elements of self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful
    aggression on the part of the victim; (b) the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
    or repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
    himself, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. However, without unlawful aggression,
    there can be no self-defense, either complete or incomplete.

    Here, Accused-appellant Ramon contends that the victim Rolando Sevilla committed an act of unlawful
    aggression with no provocation on his [Ramon's] part. Ramon testified that he was trying to investigate
    a commotion when, without warning, Rolando emerged from the group, thrust, and fired his gun at him,
    hitting him in the left shoulder. To disable Rolando from firing more shots, Ramon struck the victim's
    head at the back with his nightstick, causing the victim to reel backward and lean on the bamboo fence.
    He continued hitting Rolando to prevent the latter from regaining his balance and, as he pressed on
    farther, the victim retreated backward. By Ramon's own account, after he was shot, he hit the victim at
    the back of the latter's head, and he continued hitting the victim who retreated backward. From that
    moment, the inceptive unlawful aggression on the part of the victim ceased to exist and the
    continuation of the offensive stance of Ramon put him in the place of an aggressor. There was no longer
    any danger, but still, Ramon went beyond the call of self-preservation.

    The settled rule in jurisprudence is that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has
    the right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance.

    Ramon's claim of self-defense is further belied by the presence of two (2) stab wounds on the neck, four
    (4) lacerated wounds on the head, as well as multiple abrasions and contusions on different parts of the
    victim's body, as shown in the Medico-Legal Report.
    AS TO CONSPIRACY:

    Accused-appellants' denials cannot overcome the positive identification by the prosecution's witnesses.
    Elementary is the rule that positive identification, where categorical and consistent, prevails over
    unsubstantiated denials because the latter are negative and self-serving, and thus, cannot be given any
    weight on the scales of justice. The participation of each of the accused-appellants can be fully
    ascertained from the clear, categorical, and spontaneous testimony given by prosecution witness,
    Ronnie Siglos, who was at the scene of the crime

    Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
    felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found, for criminals do not write
    down their lawless plans and plots. The agreement to commit a crime, however, may be deduced from
    the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from acts that point to a joint
    purpose and design, concerted action, and community of intent. It does not matter who inflicted the
    mortal wound, as the act of one is the act of all, and each incurs the same criminal liability

    AS TO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

    1. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH (QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE) – To take advantage of superior


    strength is to use force out of proportion to the means available to the person attacked to
    defend himself.
    2. SCOFFING (GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE) – Accused did not just kill the victim.
    They tied him hog-style after rendering him immobilized – this action constituted outraging or
    scoffing at the corpse of the victim.

    DID NOT APPRECIATE THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER - In the case at
    bar, accused-appellants remained at large even after Judge Jose S. Sañez issued the warrant for their
    arrest on February 6, 1998. Accused-appellants surrendered only on September 9, 1998, after several
    alias warrants of arrest were issued against them. Hence, voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in
    their favor as a mitigating circumstance

    Wherefore, the decision of the CA is hereby affirmed. RPC

    You might also like