People v. Remollo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 9, 1964, around 7:00 PM, the deceased Jesus Urgel and his wife Gorgonia were walking home when they were accosted by five appellants: Salvador "Bading" Remollo, Estropio "Apiong" Remollo, Eugenio Beringuel, Iniego "Eyeng" Remollo, and Gaudioso Toboso. Three appellants positioned themselves in front of the deceased, while two went behind him. Apiong Remollo asked for a cigarette, and while the deceased was reaching for it, Gaudioso Toboso hacked him with a long bolo. The other appellants, armed with bolos and a scythe, joined in slashing the deceased. Jesus Urgel ran towards a nearby house but fell and died, sustaining 19 wounds. The incident occurred in a well-lit area near the houses of the appellants. Procedural History: The former Court of First Instance of Leyte convicted the appellants of Murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellants appealed the decision of the trial court, raising issues regarding their conviction for murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellants are guilty of murder. Whether Salvador "Bading" Remollo's plea of self-defense is tenable. Whether the alibi of the other appellants is sufficient to exculpate them. Whether treachery and abuse of superior strength are present as aggravating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto, upholding the conviction of the appellants for Murder and the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court ordered the appellants to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P12,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the appellants for murder: The Court found that the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the appellants for the crime of murder. The eyewitness testimonies of Gorgonia Urgel and others positively identified the appellants and their participation in the killing. The physical evidence, consisting of 19 wounds inflicted upon the deceased, corroborated the testimonies and indicated a brutal and concerted attack, negating any claim of self-defense or mere participation by a few. The presence of treachery was established as the deceased was hacked from behind while distracted, and the attack was executed by a group, demonstrating a clear intent to kill with attendant treachery. On Salvador "Bading" Remollo's plea of self-defense: The Court found Salvador Remollo's claim of self-defense to be inherently incredible and unconvincing. His version of events, which suggested he was ambushed and acted solely in self-preservation, was contradicted by the testimonies of state witnesses and the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim. The Court noted that if self-defense were true, the deceased would likely have sustained fewer and less severe injuries, and Salvador would not have been practically unscathed. The trial court's finding that Salvador's claimed wounds were self-inflicted was also given weight. On the alibi of the other appellants: The alibi presented by Gaudioso Toboso was found to be weak and contradictory, particularly his initial statement to the police that he only heard the incident due to stomach ache, which was inconsistent with his later claim of being able to go to the sala of his house. The corroborating witness's testimony was also deemed suspect. The alibis of the other appellants lacked any corroboration and were rendered unavailing by their positive identification as participants in the crime, especially since their supposed whereabouts did not make their presence at the scene impossible. On the presence of aggravating circumstances: The Court agreed with the trial court's rejection of cruelty and evident premeditation. However, it found that treachery was clearly present, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, with the victim being hacked from behind while distracted. The Court held that treachery absorbed the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, as the concerted attack by five individuals against a single victim inherently involved the use of superior strength, which was encompassed within the treacherous nature of the assault. Nighttime was not considered an aggravating circumstance as the place was illuminated.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, holding that the defense of self-defense was unconvincing and contradicted by the physical evidence and positive identification by witnesses. The Court also found the alibi of other appellants to be weak and uncorroborated. Treachery was found to be present, absorbing the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.