People v. Gorospe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the evening of June 10, 1953, between eight and nine o'clock, Leon Padchanan and Melecio Guillen, sons-in-law of Bernabe Andres, left their house to attend a dance. They stopped by Guillen's house to pick him up. While there, Matilde Aganad reported that Melquiades Gorospe (appellant) was quarreling with his nephew, Bonifacio Gorospe. Guillen, as barrio lieutenant, went to Bonifacio's house to investigate, accompanied by Padchanan and Bernabe Andres. Guillen and Padchanan went up to the balcony, while Bernabe Andres remained downstairs. Appellant Gorospe suddenly appeared on the balcony behind Guillen and Padchanan and stabbed Padchanan on the right breast with a bolo. As Guillen turned, appellant held him by the head and stabbed him on the left forearm and left chest, stating, "I will kill all of you." Both victims fled and died. Bernabe Andres, fearing for his life, hid. Appellant escaped. Later, Irene Andres and Lucia Andres (wives of Guillen and Padchanan, respectively) went to Bonifacio's house. Lucia was told to go home, and shortly after, heard that her husband was dead. The police investigated and found the bodies and bloodstains. Several individuals, including appellant, were brought to the municipal building where statements were taken. In his statement, appellant admitted killing Guillen due to a prior grudge and Padchanan because he heard Padchanan say they would assault him. Procedural History: Appellant was initially indicted in Criminal Cases Nos. 1113 and 1114. However, the principal witnesses turned hostile, leading to a provisional dismissal. Subsequently, Bernabe Andres, who had initially withheld information due to his relationship with the victims, provided an affidavit detailing the crime. Based on this affidavit, new informations were filed (Criminal Cases Nos. 1171 and 1172), which were revived by the court after a preliminary investigation. The Court of First Instance of Quezon found appellant guilty of murder in both cases and sentenced him to cadena perpetua in each, with civil indemnities and costs. The Petition: Appellant appealed the judgment, admitting the stabbings but claiming self-defense. He alleged that Guillen and Padchanan arrived at Bonifacio's house intoxicated, attempted to take Virginia Gorospe, and threatened him. He claimed he intervened to rescue Virginia, and that Guillen drew a hand grenade and Padchanan threatened him with a gun, prompting the stabbings. The defense also invoked the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and lack of instruction.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant acted in legitimate self-defense. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) attended the commission of the crimes. Whether the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and lack of instruction should be appreciated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. The Court found the claim of self-defense to be incredible, noting inconsistencies with the physical evidence and witness testimonies. The Court also ruled that voluntary surrender was not established, as appellant had to be brought in for investigation. Regarding the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, the Court held that illiteracy alone is insufficient; lack of sufficient intelligence is also required. The Court found no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present and thus imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, modifying the trial court's sentence of cadena perpetua.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court rejected the plea of self-defense as highly incredible and contrary to the natural course of things. The appellant's claim that Guillen was about to use a hand grenade was belied by the fact that the grenade was found safely inside Guillen's pocket after his death; had he been about to pull the pin, it would have been found at the scene or exploded. Additionally, the claim that Padchanan, a professional soldier, merely squeezed the appellant's neck instead of using his service firearm was deemed illogical. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victims. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the existence of treachery, noting that the attack was sudden and made from behind/the side while the victims were in a vulnerable squatting position. The victims were engaged in a peaceful conversation and were taken completely by surprise, leaving them no chance to defend themselves or escape. The appellant's own extrajudicial confession admitted that there was no prior conversation or warning before the stabbing began. Such a deliberate and unexpected mode of attack constitutes treachery under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. On Issue 3: Voluntary surrender was not appreciated because the appellant did not surrender of his own accord; he was among several persons taken by the police for investigation because no one at the scene volunteered information. Regarding lack of instruction, the Court held that illiteracy alone (the ability to only use a thumbmark) does not satisfy the requirement for mitigation. Citing People v. Ripas, the Court emphasized that there must be proof of low intelligence that prevents the offender from understanding the consequences of his acts. Since no such lack of intelligence was shown, the circumstance was rejected despite the Solicitor General's agreement with the appellant on this point.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty from cadena perpetua to reclusion perpetua, finding no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present, and clarified the application of the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.