People v. Apolinario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendants Julian Apolinario, Federico Barrientos, and Gervasio Lames were charged with homicide for the killing of Saturnino Cabaylo. The information alleged that the defendants, conspiring and mutually aiding one another, voluntarily, illegally, and criminally killed Saturnino Cabaylo by attacking him with bolos and inflicting mortal wounds. Procedural History: In the justice of the peace court, the defendants pleaded guilty. They were subsequently bound over to the Court of First Instance, where they pleaded not guilty. The Court of First Instance found Julian Apolinario guilty of homicide and sentenced him to seventeen years of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, and to pay costs. Federico Barrientos and Gervasio Lames were acquitted. The Petition: The appellant, Julian Apolinario, through his attorney de oficio, alleged that the lower court erred in convicting him as the author of the crime of homicide instead of acquitting him on the ground that he acted in self-defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant acted in self-defense. Whether the lower court erred in convicting the appellant of homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Julian Apolinario for homicide, with a modification in the sentence. The Court sentenced him to suffer fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Saturnino Cabaylo in the sum of P1,000. The decision of the lower court, as modified, was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of self-defense: The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defense must be duly proved. For self-defense to be a valid justification, there must have been unlawful aggression. The appellant's claim that he was attacked by the deceased with a bolo was refuted by the testimony of prosecution witnesses Alfonso Salamone and Emilio Salamone, as well as defense witness Guillermo Arellano. These witnesses testified that although the deceased had a sickle hanging from his belt, he did not use it but attempted to defend himself with his hands. Furthermore, the appellant did not sustain any injuries during the alleged attack, which is inconsistent with a genuine act of self-defense against an armed assailant. The appellant's testimony at the trial, claiming self-defense, was also impeached by his failure to make such a claim in his sworn statement (Exhibit F) before the justice of the peace and by his initial plea of guilty in the justice of the peace court. The Court found no reason to credit the appellant's testimony regarding alleged mistreatment by Constabulary soldiers, as the trial judge, who heard the witnesses, did not find it credible. The appellant's claim that he kept the alleged maltreatment a secret until the trial, not even mentioning it to his attorney, further weakened his assertion. On the alleged error of the lower court in convicting the appellant: The Supreme Court found no error in the conviction. The evidence presented established that the appellant was the assailant and that his claim of self-defense was untrue. The initial plea of guilty in the justice of the peace court, although later withdrawn in the Court of First Instance, was a significant factor considered by the Court, along with the inconsistencies in the appellant's testimony and the lack of corroborating evidence for his claim of self-defense. The Court was satisfied from an examination of the record that the appellant was the assailant and that his claim of self-defense was fabricated. Therefore, the conviction was sustained, with a modification in the penalty imposed.
Main Doctrine
A plea of self-defense must be duly proved, and there can be no self-defense until there has been unlawful aggression. The claim of self-defense is refuted if the accused did not sustain any physical injury and if the deceased was not shown to have initiated the aggression.