People v. Abesamis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Victoriano M. Abesamis and his brother Rodel were in a billiard hall. Accused-appellant played billiards with Rogelio Mercado, Jr. with a ₱40 bet. Ramon Villo was the "spotter." A dispute arose when Ramon erroneously credited a point to Rogelio. The game escalated into a shouting match. Ramon attempted to mediate but accused-appellant argued with him. Ramon decided to leave. Rodel pursued Ramon, and a fistfight ensued. Accused-appellant retrieved a butcher's knife from a Ford Fiera and stabbed Ramon in the back while Rodel held Ramon's hands from behind. Accused-appellant then stabbed Ramon twice more in the chest. Accused-appellant and Rodel fled. Ramon died from the stab wounds. Procedural History: An information for murder was filed against both brothers. Accused-appellant remained at-large until his arrest in March 1996. He pleaded not guilty, admitting the stabbing but claiming self-defense. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty of homicide, not murder, as treachery and evident premeditation were not proven. He was sentenced to 8 years and 1 day to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of prision mayor to reclusion temporal, and ordered to pay civil indemnity and "other damages." On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) found accused-appellant guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, certifying the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant questioned the CA's disregard of his self-defense claim and its finding of treachery. Meanwhile, accused-appellant was granted parole by the Board of Pardons and Parole (Board) in March 2003.
Issue(s)
Whether the grant of parole rendered the case moot. Whether accused-appellant acted in self-defense. Whether the victim was killed with treachery.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision finding accused-appellant guilty of murder, with modification regarding damages. The grant of parole was declared NULL and VOID. Accused-appellant was ordered to be REARRESTED immediately to serve his sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of parole rendering the case moot: The Court held that the grant of parole did not render the case moot. Parole is a conditional release and does not extinguish criminal or civil liability under Article 89 and Article 113 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively. The Court emphasized that the Board of Pardons and Parole acted ultra vires and improvidently in granting parole to accused-appellant, as murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua, a crime disqualifying an offender from parole according to the Board's own rules. Furthermore, the Board disregarded the CA's decision, which would have made its determination of minimum penalty served erroneous. The Court stressed that the grant of parole should not have been based on the RTC decision when a CA decision finding the accused guilty of murder was pending review. On the issue of self-defense: The Court ruled that accused-appellant did not act in self-defense. The burden of proving unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation rests on the accused. The Court found that both the RTC and CA concluded there was no unlawful aggression on the victim's part and that accused-appellant was the unlawful aggressor. The nature, number, and location of the wounds, particularly the stab wound in the victim's back, contradicted the accused-appellant's claim of a face-to-face fight. The Court also noted that accused-appellant's failure to surrender, his escape, and his hiding for over a year indicated guilt rather than self-defense. The appellate court's findings on this factual issue were based on competent evidence and were not disturbed. On the issue of treachery: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that treachery attended the killing. Treachery is present when the assault is perpetrated in a manner that ensures the offender's safety and deprives the victim of any chance to defend himself. The victim was stabbed in the back while engaged in a fistfight with Rodel, rendering him defenseless and unaware of the attack. He was then stabbed twice more in front while his hands were held by Rodel, leaving him completely at the mercy of the accused-appellant. This mode of attack ensured no risk to the accused-appellant and deprived the victim of any possibility of defense, fitting the definition of treachery as established in jurisprudence, such as in People v. Fabrigas, Jr..
Main Doctrine
The grant of parole does not extinguish criminal or civil liability. The Board of Pardons and Parole acted ultra vires in granting parole to an accused convicted of murder, a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, and in disregarding the Court of Appeals' decision. The nature, number, and location of wounds, coupled with the accused's flight, negate self-defense. Treachery was present as the victim was stabbed from behind while engaged in a fistfight with another person and was defenseless.