People v. Calicdan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the evening of March 21, 1972, in Manaoag, Pangasinan, Teodulo Calicdan, along with Artemio Ortiz and Felipe Peralta, were charged with murder for the death of Jose Sabado and murder with frustrated murder for the death of Cecilia Sabado and the wounding of Rizalino Caoile. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired, armed with guns, and with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, shot the victims. The defense claimed self-defense. Procedural History: The trial court found Teodulo Calicdan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two separate crimes of murder and murder with frustrated murder, with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Felipe Peralta remained at large. Artemio Ortiz was dismissed from the charges due to insufficiency of evidence upon motion. Calicdan's offer to plead guilty to lesser offenses was denied. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court of Dagupan City.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused Teodulo Calicdan is guilty of murder and murder with frustrated murder. Whether the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the crimes. Whether the accused acted in self-defense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. Teodulo Calicdan was found guilty of homicide in Criminal Case No. CCC-III-0136 and homicide with frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. CCC-III-0137. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty for each crime, ordered to indemnify the heirs of Jose Sabado and Cecilia Sabado, and to indemnify Rizalino Caoile. The Court found the presence of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance without any aggravating circumstance to offset it.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of Teodulo Calicdan: The Supreme Court found that while Calicdan admitted shooting Jose Sabado and Rizalino Caoile, the elements of treachery and evident premeditation were not sufficiently established. Treachery requires the deliberate employment of means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender, which was not proven. Cecilia Sabado was hit by stray bullets intended for Rizalino Caoile, negating treachery as to her. Evident premeditation requires proof of prior planning and reflection, which was also absent. Therefore, the crimes were reclassified as homicide and homicide with frustrated homicide. The Court also considered Calicdan's offer to settle the cases as an implied admission of guilt, admissible under Section 24, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. This further weakened his defense. On the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation: The Court found no proof that Calicdan had previously planned to kill or injure the victims. The shooting was not shown to be the result of deliberate thought and reflection. Therefore, evident premeditation was not appreciated. On the claim of self-defense: The Court rejected the claim of self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, unlawful aggression must be present. The Court found no unlawful aggression on the part of Jose Sabado, as the alleged struggle for the shotgun was not convincingly proven, and the necropsy report did not mention powder burns or cartridge cartons in the wound to support the close-range firing during a struggle. Furthermore, the written statement of Calicdan to the police did not mention the alleged attempt to wrest the shotgun. Regarding Rizalino Caoile, the claim of self-defense was also untenable as Caoile was not armed, and the statement of co-accused Artemio Ortiz, admissible as part of the res gestae, confirmed that neither Jose Sabado nor Rizalino Caoile was armed. The Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as Calicdan proceeded to the house of the barrio captain and surrendered to the police thereafter. This circumstance was considered without any aggravating circumstance to offset it.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the trial court's decision, finding the accused guilty of homicide and homicide with frustrated homicide, not murder, due to the absence of treachery and evident premeditation. The Court also clarified the elements of self-defense and the admissibility of certain evidence.