People v. Sarol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 11, 1980, Eutiquio Canoy was stabbed nine times (six in front, three in the back) during a basketball game in San Fernando, Cebu, and died on the spot. Paulino Sarol surrendered to the police that same afternoon with a bolo. Visitacion Canoy stated that she saw the five Sarol brothers encircle Eutiquio, with Francisco holding his hands, and heard Eutiquio say, "Just finish me." This led to the inclusion of Francisco, Doroteo, Genaro, and Victorio in the murder complaint. The Sarol brothers' father had been killed by a son of Eutiquio Canoy years prior. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cebu convicted Paulino, Francisco, and Doroteo Sarol for Murder. Paulino was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty with a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Francisco and Doroteo were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Genaro and Victorio were acquitted due to reasonable doubt. The three convicted brothers appealed. The Petition: The accused-appellants assigned errors concerning the trial court's reliance on discredited testimonies, the classification of the crime as murder, the failure to acquit Francisco and Doroteo, and the non-appreciation of incomplete self-defense for Paulino.
Issue(s)
Whether the plea of incomplete self-defense is tenable. Whether the crime committed is Murder. Whether Francisco and Doroteo Sarol should have been acquitted. Whether the penalty imposed on Paulino Sarol is correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Paulino, Francisco, and Doroteo Sarol for Murder, with modifications to the penalty imposed on Paulino and the civil indemnity awarded. The Court rejected the plea of incomplete self-defense and found sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy and the commission of murder.
Ratio Decidendi
On the plea of incomplete self-defense: The Court rejected the plea of incomplete self-defense, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the accused to establish all the facts necessary to prove such a circumstance. Paulino Sarol failed to meet this burden. The deceased suffered nine wounds, six in front and three in the back, which the Court found indicative of a determined effort to kill rather than an act of self-defense. Even Paulino's wife testified that he continued to inflict blows after the victim was already down and could have run away. The Court cited People vs. Martija (112 SCRA 528) stating that multiple wounds are indicative of a determined effort to kill. Furthermore, Paulino's statement upon surrender, "I have stabbed a man and I am now here to surrender," without mentioning self-defense, further weakened his claim. On the classification of the crime as Murder: The Court correctly categorized the crime as Murder, qualifying it with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The evidence showed that three persons participated in the crime, two of whom were armed with knives, and they launched a simultaneous attack on a defenseless person who had already raised his arms in a gesture of surrender. This concerted action by multiple assailants against a single victim clearly established the element of superior strength, as supported by jurisprudence such as U.S. vs. Banagale (24 Phil. 69), U.S. vs. Abril (51 Phil. 670), and U.S. vs. Lasada (21 Phil. 287). On the acquittal of Francisco and Doroteo Sarol: The Court agreed with the trial court that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses positively identified Francisco and Doroteo as culprits. They were part of the group of five brothers who encircled the victim. Francisco held the victim's hands, enabling Paulino to stab him from behind, while Doroteo stabbed the victim from the front. Doroteo was also seen carrying a knife before the incident. The Court reiterated the fundamental rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, having observed their deportment and manner of testifying, are given great weight and the highest degree of respect by appellate courts, as established in Tapales vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines (120 SCRA 473). On the penalty imposed on Paulino Sarol: The Court modified the penalty imposed on Paulino Sarol. While the penalty for Murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, Paulino was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the imposable penalty should be reclusion temporal in its maximum period, and the minimum should be within the range of prision mayor in its maximum period. The Court adjusted Paulino's penalty to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil indemnity was also increased from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00.
Main Doctrine
The commission of multiple fatal wounds, particularly those inflicted on the front and back of the victim, negates the claim of self-defense and indicates a determined effort to kill. The concerted action of multiple assailants, especially when they encircle the victim and immobilize him, establishes conspiracy and qualifies the crime as murder due to abuse of superior strength.