People of the Philippines vs. Jose Agripa

A conviction for parricide cannot stand where the accused establishes all the requisites of self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and an extrajudicial statement that is admissible as part of the res gestae is not necessarily credible where the declarant was not in full possession of his faculties.

Jose and Adelfa Agripa were spouses living in barangay Humapon, Legazpi City, with their children, including eighteen-year-old Edwin. Jose worked as a lowly laborer; Adelfa was known for cruelty and violence, having twice hacked Jose with a bolo and once hanged Edwin by the neck from a coconut tree. The killing of Adelfa led to Jose’s prosecution for parricide under the Revised Penal Code.

Jose and Adelfa Agripa were spouses residing in barangay Humapon, Legazpi City, with their children, including eighteen-year-old Edwin. Jose worked as a lowly laborer. Adelfa was known for a violent temperament: she had twice hacked Jose with a bolo and had once hanged Edwin by the neck from a coconut tree. On the afternoon of April 29, 1980, Manuel Cardel heard Adelfa say in Macedonio’s store that she would stab Jose if he came home without money. Jose later came home without his salary, saying he would collect it the following day. That night, Jose went to sleep early; Edwin studied his lessons and then slept while Adelfa continued folding clothes. Edwin testified that there was no quarrel between his parents when his father went to sleep, but his mother was in her usual angry mood.

At about one o’clock in the morning of April 30, 1980, authorities investigating reports of a stabbing found Adelfa dead on the floor in a pool of blood and Jose locked in a final embrace with her. Adelfa had sustained fifteen wounds and had died from shock and massive hemorrhage; Jose had four wounds and was hardly alive. Because Jose refused to release his hold on his dead wife, the couple was rolled in a mat and rushed to the hospital. Jose later testified that he had gone to sleep early but was awakened by a stab wound in his stomach. He could not see his assailant because it was dark. He covered the wound with his right hand, but a second thrust wounded him again almost in the same place. He curled into a fetal position with his hands at the back of his neck and asked, “Why did you stab me?” A third thrust sliced through his left arm and pierced the right part of his chest. He then grabbed the fist of his attacker and wrestled in the dark for possession of the weapon. He could not recall what happened afterward, as he must have fainted, and he had no recollection of the statement he supposedly made before being brought to the hospital. He recovered consciousness only on May 4, 1980, and was then told that his wife had tried to kill him.

Edwin corroborated his father’s account. He testified that he was awakened by the sound of a scuffle; when he turned on his flashlight, he saw his mother stabbing his father. He simulated the stabbing by swinging his right arm downward. Afraid to help his father, he woke his two brothers and rushed with them to their grandfather’s house to seek help. On their way out, they heard his father say, “Why did you stab me?” Edwin identified the bolo-knife as belonging to his mother, who usually carried it for cutting leaves to cover herself when it rained, but who had twice used it against Jose: once to stab him on the right side of his body and once to hack his upper right arm. Both incidents were reported to the barangay captain. Edwin admitted that he loved his father more than his mother and recalled that when he was in Grade I, his mother had hanged him by the neck from a coconut tree with a piece of katsa cloth.

That same morning, Corporal Wilfredo Bermas, a member of the investigating team, took down an exchange with Jose, whom he believed to be on the verge of death. In that exchange, Jose allegedly said that he had stabbed himself and his wife, that he did so because of family problems, that he intended to kill his wife, and that he wanted to die with her. The statement was not signed by Jose. On Bermas’s request, it was witnessed by barangay captain Salustiano Botin, who was present during the recorded conversation. Also submitted as evidence was the 8-inch bolo-knife used in the killing, which Botin turned over to the police at seven o’clock that same morning; he had received it from a neighbor of the couple who had picked it up at the scene, as the police had neglected to look for it. Jose survived to face prosecution for parricide two months later.

• Self-Defense: Jose Agripa maintained that he was asleep when his wife suddenly attacked him with a bolo, that he could not see his assailant because it was dark, that he was wounded in the stomach and chest, and that he grabbed the weapon and wrestled for it only to save his life.
• Incredibility of Extrajudicial Statement: He denied recollection of the statement taken by Corporal Bermas, claiming he regained consciousness only on May 4, 1980, and was then told that his wife had tried to kill him.
• Wife’s Violent Character: The defense presented Edwin Agripa and Manuel Cardel to show Adelfa’s violent nature, including prior stabbings and her threat to stab Jose if he came home without money, corroborating that she was the aggressor.

• Self-Defense: Whether Jose Agripa established the justifying circumstance of self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code, specifically unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation on his part.
• Dying Declaration and Res Gestae: Whether Jose’s extrajudicial statement was admissible as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestae.
• Credibility of the Statement: Whether the extrajudicial statement, if admissible, was credible evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction for parricide.

• Self-Defense: Yes. All requisites of self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code were present and sufficiently established; the conviction was reversed and Jose Agripa was acquitted.
• Dying Declaration and Res Gestae: The statement was not admissible as a dying declaration because it did not show consciousness of impending death, but it was admissible as part of the res gestae, having been made soon after the startling occurrence.
• Credibility of the Statement: No. Although admissible, the statement was not credible evidence of criminal liability because Jose was not in full possession of his faculties when he made it.

• Self-Defense: Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code requires (a) unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. When the accused invokes self-defense, he loses the constitutional presumption of innocence and assumes the burden of proving the justification by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found all requisites present. Jose was sound asleep when Adelfa suddenly attacked him with intent to kill, with no warning. There was no provocation on his part; her anger over his failure to bring home his salary was not the sufficient provocation required by law. The knife thrusts to his stomach and chest posed an immediate threat to his life, and he had no choice but to defend himself by the only means available. He grabbed the knife and struck wildly, thinking only to save his life. The fifteen wounds on Adelfa did not show cruelty or malice; he was fighting desperately for his life under mortal fear and the instinct for survival and did not know when to stop. Jose was a peaceful, law-abiding person with no police record, and Adelfa had a history of violence, including prior stabbings and the hanging of their son. Thus, self-defense was sufficiently established.
• Dying Declaration and Res Gestae: The trial court correctly rejected the statement as a dying declaration because it did not comply with all the requirements of that hearsay exception. Although Jose was near death, the statement did not show that it was made under the consciousness of impending death. Nevertheless, the statement was correctly admitted as part of the res gestae because it was made soon after the startling occurrence of the multiple stabbing of Jose and Adelfa. The Court distinguished admissibility from credibility: under Rule 128, Section 3, evidence is admissible if it is relevant and not excluded by law or the rules, but admissibility does not necessarily mean credibility.
• Credibility of the Statement: Credibility depends on the evaluation given to the evidence by the court in accordance with Rule 133 of the Rules of Court and the doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court. Jose’s statement, while admissible as part of the res gestae, was not credible evidence of his criminal liability. He was not in full possession of his faculties when he made it, and he did not sign it. When the authorities found the wounded couple, Jose refused to let go of his dead wife and was rolled up with her cadaver in a mat to be brought to the hospital—conduct that was not that of a rational man. He was also suffering from four stab wounds that could have cost him his life without immediate treatment. Given his mental and physical condition, he could not be expected to think clearly and to willingly make the serious and damning confession imputed to him. Thus, the statement could not sustain the conviction.

• Self-Defense — Under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code, self-defense requires (a) unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. An accused who invokes self-defense loses the constitutional presumption of innocence and must prove the justification by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, all three requisites were established because Adelfa suddenly attacked Jose while he was asleep, he had no sufficient provocation, and he used the only available means to save his life.
• Admissibility vs. Credibility — Evidence is admissible if it is relevant and not excluded by law or the rules, but admissibility does not necessarily mean credibility. Credibility depends on the court’s evaluation under Rule 133 and prevailing jurisprudence. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Jose’s statement, though admissible as res gestae, was not credible evidence of guilt.
• Dying Declaration — A dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule and requires that the statement be made under the consciousness of impending death. The Court held that Jose’s statement did not qualify because it did not show that he made it under such consciousness, even though he was near death.
• Res Gestae — A statement made soon after a startling occurrence may be admitted as part of the res gestae. The Court held that Jose’s statement was admissible under this exception because it was made soon after the multiple stabbing of Jose and Adelfa.
• Multiple Wounds in Self-Defense — The number of wounds inflicted does not necessarily negate self-defense where the accused acted in mortal fear and under the instinct for survival. The Court held that the fifteen wounds on Adelfa did not show cruelty or malice because Jose was fighting desperately for his life and did not know when to stop.

• "The trial court correctly rejected the above-quoted interrogation as a dying declaration because it did not comply with all the requirements of this particular exception to the hearsay rule. The statement does not show that it was made by the declarant under the consciousness of impending death (although it is true that Jose was near death at that time). Nevertheless, it was correctly admitted as part of the res gestae, having been made soon after the startling occurrence of the multiple stabbing of Jose and Adelfa." — This passage distinguishes the requirements of a dying declaration from those of res gestae and explains why Jose’s statement was admissible despite failing the dying-declaration test.
• "But the mere fact that evidence is admissible does not necessarily mean that it is also credible." — This states the Court’s central evidentiary principle: admissibility and credibility are distinct inquiries, and an admissible statement may still be rejected as unbelievable.
• "The essential elements of self-defense, according to Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code, are: a) unlawful aggression: b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. We feel that all these requisites are present and have been sufficiently established in the case at bar." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of the requisites of self-defense and its direct finding that all were satisfied.
• "If it appeared later that he had wounded his wife no less than fifteen times, it was not because he was a cruel and bloodthirsty killer. The only reason was that he was fighting desperately for his very life and, animated only by his mortal fear of his unknown aggressor and moved like a wild beast by the elemental instinct for survival, did not know when to stop." — This passage explains why the number of wounds did not negate self-defense and is frequently cited for the principle that multiple wounds may be consistent with a desperate struggle for survival.

• People vs. Abellara, 47 Phil. 731; People vs. Furugganan, 193 SCRA 471; People vs. Ola, 152 SCRA 1; People vs. Aniel, 96 SCRA 199 — Cited collectively by the Court as doctrinal support for evaluating the credibility of evidence under Rule 133 and the Court’s guidelines.
• Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 38 — Cited for the rule that an accused who invokes self-defense loses the constitutional presumption of innocence and assumes the burden of proving the justification by clear and convincing evidence.

• Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines self-defense and its requisites. Applied to acquit Jose because all requisites were present.
• Rule 128, Section 3, Rules of Court — Provides that evidence is admissible if relevant and not excluded by law or the rules. Applied to hold Jose’s statement admissible as res gestae.
• Rule 133, Rules of Court — Provides guidelines for evaluating credibility. Applied to reject Jose’s statement as not credible despite admissibility.

Narvasa, C.J., Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.