People of the Philippines vs. Adronico Gregorio and Ricardo Gregorio

The defense of self-defense requires proof of unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonableness of the means employed to repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself; where the number, location, and gravity of wounds inflicted on the victim belie the claim, self-defense fails. Conspiracy may be inferred from the coordinated acts of the accused demonstrating a common design, and treachery exists where the mode of attack renders the victim defenseless without opportunity to resist.

The appellants were brothers who lived in Sitio Bug-as, Barangay Sta. Cruz, Murcia, Negros Occidental. The incident occurred during a wake held at the house of appellant Adronico Gregorio for his grandson, where neighbors and relatives had gathered. Adronico had requested attendees to deposit their weapons with him for safekeeping to avoid trouble, and Carlos Catorse had surrendered his "samurai" (a type of bladed weapon) to him. The dispute arose from a game of "pusoy" (Russian poker) being played upstairs during the wake.

Around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of May 7, 1986, Carlos Catorse and his fifteen-year-old son Romeo arrived at the two-storey house of appellant Adronico Gregorio at Sitio Bug-as, Barangay Sta. Cruz, Murcia, Negros Occidental, to attend the wake of Adronico's grandson. Persons attending the wake were requested by Adronico to deposit with him any weapon in their possession for safekeeping, and Carlos Catorse handed over his "samurai," while John Villarosa and Remolito Calalas surrendered their respective knives.

Around 1:00 o'clock in the morning of May 8, 1986, while a game of "pusoy" was in progress upstairs, appellant Ricardo Gregorio, in a very loud voice, reprimanded "Tunggak" (Adronico's son) for peeping at the cards of other players. In response, Tunggak stood up and, also in a very loud voice, ordered the game stopped. Overhearing the incident, Adronico ordered Tunggak downstairs and scolded and boxed him several times. While Adronico was severely beating Tunggak, Carlos Catorse approached and begged Adronico to stop hurting his son so as not to put him to shame before the crowd. While Carlos was in this act of pacifying the matter between father and son, Ricardo suddenly stabbed Carlos from behind with a "samurai" — the same samurai Carlos had deposited with Adronico — and thereafter hacked and stabbed him several more times in different parts of his body. Right after Carlos fell to the ground, Adronico repeatedly hacked the victim with a bolo.

Terrified, Romeo Catorse ran out of the house. Jovito Nicavera also tried to get out but Adronico hacked him on his left shoulder. Marcelo Lo tried to help his uncle Jovito, but Ricardo hacked him on the forearm with the same samurai, and Adronico followed and hacked Marcelo on the nape. Although wounded, Marcelo was able to run out of the house, but Adronico ran after him, overtook him, and hacked him again. When Ricardo followed the two, the visitors attending the wake scampered out of the house. Later, Romeo Catorse and his siblings returned to find their father lying prostrate and dead. Around 9:00 o'clock that morning, police authorities arrived and found the bodies of Carlos Catorse and Marcelo Lo inside the house and at the yard of Adronico, respectively. The investigation revealed that the appellants had fled to Sitio Anangge, Barangay Buenavista, Murcia, about 4 kilometers away, where they were apprehended.

The post-mortem examination revealed that Carlos Catorse sustained twelve hack wounds and four stab wounds, while Marcelo Lo sustained six hack wounds; both died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to multiple wounds. The defense presented a different version: Ricardo testified that Carlos Catorse suddenly kicked the front door, boxed his nephew Eduardo, drew his samurai and attempted to attack, and that he grappled for the weapon and turned its point back to Carlos, who was hit in the stomach and fell. Adronico declared that he was in the kitchen when Marcelo Lo and Jovito Nicavera destroyed the bamboo walls, entered, and assaulted him; that Marcelo attacked him with a bolo which he parried; that Jovito pointed a gun at him; and that he slashed Jovito's hand and struck Marcelo with a bolo until the latter fell outside the kitchen.

• Weight of Prosecution Evidence: Appellants argued that the trial court gravely erred in giving weight and credence to the theory of the prosecution and in disregarding that of the defense.
• Self-Defense: Appellants argued that the trial court gravely erred in rejecting their defense of self-defense.
• Conspiracy and Treachery: Appellants argued that the trial court gravely erred in finding that conspiracy and treachery existed in the case.
• Reasonable Doubt: Appellants argued that the trial court gravely erred in finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

N/A — The decision does not recount the arguments of the Office of the Solicitor General as plaintiff-appellee beyond the summary of the prosecution's evidence contained in the People's brief.

• Self-Defense: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting appellant Adronico Gregorio's defense of self-defense.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy existed between appellants Adronico and Ricardo Gregorio.
• Treachery: Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated against the appellants.
• Penalty and Civil Indemnity: Whether the penalty of life imprisonment and the civil indemnity of P30,000.00 imposed by the trial court were correct.

• Self-Defense: No. The claim of self-defense failed because the number, location, and gravity of the wounds inflicted on the victims belied the claim, and the accused's flight from the scene negated self-defense and indicated guilt.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was evident from the coordinated acts of the brothers, who successively attacked the victims with their weapons in a manner demonstrating a common felonious objective, even without proof of a previous agreement.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery existed because the victims were unarmed, defenseless, and helpless, and the attack was sudden and specially employed to insure execution of the crime without risk to the assailants.
• Penalty and Civil Indemnity: The penalty was modified from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and the civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 for each victim pursuant to People vs. Sison.

• Self-Defense: When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to prove its elements: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonableness of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Having admitted the killing, the appellant had to justify his taking of a life by the exacting standards of the law. The physical evidence contradicted the claim: Carlos Catorse sustained sixteen hack and stab wounds and Marcelo Lo sustained six mortal hack wounds, which defied reason if the accused had merely acted to defend themselves. The rule is settled that the nature and extent of the wounds inflicted on a victim negate a claim of self-defense. The defense's testimonies were found incredible and innately false, as they claimed to have inflicted only a single stab wound each, which could not explain the autopsy findings. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses were unanimous that the appellant and his brother started the skirmish, and there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Carlos, who only wanted to pacify Adronico, nor on Marcelo's part, who was only trying to flee. The appellant's flight from the scene instead of reporting the matter to the police negated self-defense and indicated guilt.

• Conspiracy: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy, as it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design toward the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and the perpetrators will be liable as principals. In this case, although there was no proof of a previous agreement, conspiracy was evident from the manner of perpetration: after Ricardo lunged at Carlos with a samurai from behind several times, Adronico attacked him in turn with a bolo; the appellants successively hacked Marcelo using the same weapons. The incident happened in split seconds, and the brothers acted in unison and cooperated with each other toward the accomplishment of a common felonious objective. Citing People vs. Regalario, an indicium of conspiracy is when the acts of the accused are aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object.

• Treachery: Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Ricardo stealthily stabbed Carlos from behind and repeatedly hacked him, and as Carlos fell to the ground, Adronico followed suit with a bolo. The assault upon Marcelo happened in a span of seconds, with the victims unarmed and defenseless. The mode of attack rendered the victims helpless without any opportunity to defend themselves from the unreasonable and unexpected assault. The use of deadly weapons, the traitorous manner of assault, and the number of wounds inflicted all demonstrated a deliberate, determined assault with intent to kill.

• Penalty and Civil Indemnity: The trial court erred in imposing "life imprisonment," as the correct penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua. Life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua are different and distinct penalties: reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty years, carries accessory penalties, and is imposed under the Revised Penal Code, while life imprisonment is imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws and does not carry accessory penalties. Pursuant to People vs. Sison, the civil indemnity for the death of a victim was increased to P50,000.00.

• Self-Defense — For self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression were reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to prove the elements of that claim; otherwise, having admitted the killing, conviction is inescapable. The nature and extent of the wounds inflicted on a victim negate a claim of self-defense.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential; conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused. An indicium of conspiracy is when the acts of the accused are aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. A sudden attack on unarmed and defenseless victims who have no opportunity to defend themselves qualifies the killing as murder.

• Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment — These two penalties are different and distinct. Reclusion perpetua under the Revised Penal Code entails imprisonment for at least thirty years, carries accessory penalties, and is imposed for felonies defined in the Code. Life imprisonment is imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws, does not carry accessory penalties, and does not have a definite extent or duration.

• Flight — Flight evidences guilt and a guilty conscience; it strongly indicates a guilty mind and betrays the existence of a guilty conscience. Flight from the scene of the crime negates self-defense.

• "If Adronico Gregorio and Ricardo Gregorio stabbed Carlos Catorse and Marcelo Lo merely to defend themselves, it certainly defies reason why they had to inflict sixteen stab wounds on Carlos and six on Marcelo. The location, number and gravity of the wounds inflicted on the victims belie the appellant's contention that they acted in self-defense." — This passage articulates the core reasoning for rejecting the self-defense claim, establishing that physical evidence of multiple wounds is inconsistent with a claim of defensive action.

• "An indicium of conspiracy is when the acts of the accused are aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments." — This quotation, cited from People vs. Regalario, provides the canonical formulation for inferring conspiracy from coordinated acts without direct proof of an agreement.

• "As noted from the dispositive portion of the assailed decision, the trial court imposed the penalty of life imprisonment for the crime of murder. Evidently, the said court failed to appreciate the substantial difference between Reclusion Perpetua under the Revised Penal Code and Life Imprisonment when imposed as a penalty by special law. These two penalties are different and distinct from each other." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Ruelan, clarifies the distinction between reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment, a recurring point of error in trial court decisions.

• People vs. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239 [1994] — Controlling precedent for the rule that upon the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action against him is extinguished, and the civil action for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished.
• People vs. Regalario, 220 SCRA 368 [1993] — Cited for the doctrine that conspiracy may be inferred from coordinated acts of the accused aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another part.
• People vs. Ruelan, 231 SCRA 650 [1994] — Cited for the distinction between reclusion perpetua under the Revised Penal Code and life imprisonment imposed by special law.
• People vs. Sison, 189 SCRA 643 [1990] — Cited as the basis for increasing the civil indemnity for the death of a victim to P50,000.00.
• People vs. Penillos — Cited in the discussion of the distinction between reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment, as quoted in Administrative Circular No. 6-A-92.
• People vs. Baguio — Cited for the proposition that the Revised Penal Code does not prescribe the penalty of life imprisonment for any of the felonies therein defined, that penalty being invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws.
• People vs. Mobe — Cited as an early case (1948) clarifying that reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment.
• People vs. Pilones — Cited as reiterating the distinction between reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment.
• People vs. Sumadic — Cited for the concurring opinion of Justice Ramon Aquino clarifying that reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining the crime of murder and prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which the Court applied in correcting the trial court's erroneous imposition of life imprisonment.
• Article 16, Revised Penal Code — The provision defining treachery (alevosia), which the Court applied in affirming the trial court's appreciation of treachery as qualifying the killing to murder.

Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the provided case text.