People of the Philippines vs. Victoriano M. Abesamis

Parole is a conditional release that neither extinguishes criminal or civil liability nor renders a criminal appeal moot, and a parole grant to a person convicted of an offense punished with reclusion perpetua is void for lack of legal and factual basis; the killing is murder qualified by treachery where the victim was stabbed from behind while grappling with another and then repeatedly stabbed while defenseless.

At around 6:00 p.m. on September 18, 1994, Victoriano M. Abesamis and his brother Rodel Abesamis were at a billiard hall located at Cruz corner Pepin Streets in Sampaloc, Manila. Victoriano played a game of billiards called "rotation" with Rogelio Mercado, Jr., with a ₱40 bet on the line, and Ramon Villo acted as spotter. Victoriano was ahead with 59 points when he pocketed the number 3 ball, but Ramon erroneously scored it for Rogelio. Victoriano protested, Rogelio suddenly rearranged the balls on the table, and the game turned into a shouting match between Rogelio and Victoriano. Ramon tried to mediate, but Victoriano vented his ire on him, sparking a heated argument.

Ramon decided to leave and proceeded out of the hall. Rodel pursued him and caught up with him in front of an Andok's lechon manok store a few meters away. A fistfight between the two ensued. While they were trading blows, Victoriano ran to a Ford Fiera parked nearby, got a foot-long butcher's knife, and rushed to where Ramon and Rodel were fighting. He stabbed Ramon in the back. The victim turned around to face Victoriano, but Rodel grabbed his hands and held them from behind. Victoriano then stabbed Ramon two more times, one in the upper right portion of the chest and another in the lower left portion of the chest. Thereafter, Victoriano and Rodel boarded the Ford Fiera and drove away.

Greatly weakened by the mortal wounds inflicted on him, Ramon managed to take a few steps before slumping on the pavement. His mother and brother soon arrived, and he was brought to the University of Sto. Tomas Hospital, where he was declared dead on arrival. Dr. Manuel Lagonera performed an autopsy and reported three stab wounds: one in the right anterior thorax transecting the sternum and the right sub-clavian artery and ascending aorta; one in the left lower anterior thorax lacerating the diaphragm and spleen; and one in the left lower posterior thorax incising the lower lobe of the left lung. The cause of death was stab wounds.

An information for murder was filed against Victoriano and Rodel in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41, alleging conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. Both remained at-large, and the case was temporarily archived. It was reactivated when Victoriano was arrested on March 26, 1996. He pleaded not guilty when arraigned. During trial, he admitted stabbing Ramon with a butcher's knife but claimed that he did so only to defend himself. He testified that when he questioned why ball number 3 was credited to Rogelio, Ramon suddenly cussed him and threatened to kill him; that when he tried to leave the billiards hall, Ramon blocked his way and tried to stab him with a balisong; that he evaded the thrust and ran outside to get a butcher's knife from the Ford Fiera; that Ramon pursued him, and when he stood his ground, Ramon tried to stab him again and hit him in the left arm; and that he fought back and stabbed Ramon several times.

After the stabbing, Victoriano boarded the Ford Fiera and drove toward España Street, encountered heavy traffic, and abandoned the vehicle somewhere on Forbes Street. He wanted to surrender to the police but was advised by his relatives not to do so because Ramon's relatives might kill him. He then went to his hometown in Calamba, Laguna, and eluded arrest until March 26, 1996. The trial court found that the killing was established but that the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation or treachery. The Court of Appeals found that Ramon was first stabbed in the back while engaged in a fistfight with Rodel, then twice in front when he turned around to face Victoriano, with his hands held behind him by Rodel.

• Self-Defense: Accused-appellant argued that the Court of Appeals disregarded his claim that he acted only in self-defense when he inflicted the mortal wounds on Ramon; he maintained that Ramon cussed and threatened him, blocked his way, tried to stab him with a balisong, pursued him, and hit him in the left arm, prompting him to fight back and stab Ramon several times.
• Treachery: Accused-appellant argued that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the killing was attended by treachery.

• Mootness: Whether the grant of parole rendered the case moot.
• Self-Defense: Whether accused-appellant only acted in self-defense.
• Treachery: Whether the victim was killed with treachery.
• Damages: Whether the award of ₱100,000 "for other damages" was proper.

• Mootness: No. Parole is a conditional release that does not extinguish criminal or civil liability and does not render the appeal moot; a parole grant to a person convicted of an offense punished with reclusion perpetua is void for lack of legal and factual basis.
• Self-Defense: No. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was not proved; the nature, number, and location of the wounds and accused-appellant's flight negated self-defense.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery attended the killing because the victim was stabbed from behind while grappling with another and then repeatedly stabbed while defenseless.
• Damages: No as to the ₱100,000 "for other damages." The award was improper for lack of specification and proof; civil indemnity of ₱50,000, moral damages of ₱50,000, and temperate damages of ₱25,000 were proper, while exemplary damages were not warranted.

• Mootness: Parole is the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after serving the minimum term of his prison sentence. It does not extinguish criminal liability because it is not among the modes of total extinction under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code; the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius applies. It also does not extinguish civil liability, since Article 113 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the offender remains obliged to satisfy civil liability notwithstanding service of sentence or release by parole or other reason. The grant of parole did not render the appeal moot because violation of parole conditions may lead to rearrest to serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence. Moreover, if the CA decision imposing reclusion perpetua were affirmed, the Board's determination that accused-appellant had served the minimum penalty would be erroneous; the Board also violated its own rule disqualifying from parole those convicted of an offense punished with reclusion perpetua. Thus, the parole was void for lack of legal and factual basis.
• Self-Defense: Self-defense requires (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. The accused bears the burden of proving these elements clearly and convincingly, and self-defense depends first on proof of unlawful aggression. Both the trial and appellate courts found no unlawful aggression by Ramon and that accused-appellant was the unlawful aggressor. The nature, number, and location of the wounds disproved self-defense: the fatal stab wound at the victim's back was inconsistent with a face-to-face fight, and the wounds indicated a determined effort to kill rather than to defend. Accused-appellant's failure to surrender, escape to Laguna, and hiding for more than a year until arrest further contradicted self-defense, as flight is indicative of guilt. The issue was also a question of fact, and the trial and appellate courts' identical conclusions were based on competent evidence.
• Treachery: Treachery attended the killing because accused-appellant perpetrated it in a manner that left no risk to himself from any defense the victim might have made. Ramon was unarmed, had his back turned to accused-appellant, and was fighting with another person when stabbed in different parts of his body. He was caught totally by surprise and had no chance to survive the attack. The Court cited People vs. Fabrigas, Jr., where treachery was held present when the assailant stabbed the victim while the latter was grappling with another, rendering him practically helpless and unable to put up any defense.
• Damages: The trial court correctly awarded ₱50,000 as civil indemnity for the victim's death, which needed no evidence or proof of damages. However, the award of ₱100,000 "for other damages" was wrong because trial courts must specify each item of damages and make a finding thereon in the body of the decision. Although every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable, and an appeal in a criminal proceeding opens the entire case for review, including indemnity and damages, actual damages are proper only if the actual amount of loss was proven with reasonable certainty and supported by receipts. The victim's mother testified that she incurred funeral and burial expenses but failed to substantiate them, so actual or compensatory damages could not be awarded. Temperate damages of ₱25,000 were allowed because the heirs suffered pecuniary loss but the amount could not be established with certainty. Moral damages of ₱50,000 were proper for the mental anguish and distress suffered by the victim's mother. Exemplary damages were not warranted because no aggravating circumstance attended the crime.

• Parole does not extinguish criminal or civil liability — Parole is the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after serving the minimum term of his prison sentence. It is not one of the modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, and under Article 113 the offender remains obliged to satisfy civil liability notwithstanding service of sentence or release by parole or other reason. In this case, the grant of parole did not render the appeal moot; violation of parole conditions may result in rearrest to serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence, and the parole was void because the Board of Pardons and Parole granted it despite its own rule disqualifying persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua.
• Self-defense — Self-defense requires (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. The accused bears the burden of proving these elements clearly and convincingly, and absence of unlawful aggression defeats the claim. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting accused-appellant's self-defense because both lower courts found no unlawful aggression by the victim and the wounds and flight negated his claim.
• Treachery — Treachery is present where the assailant stabbed the victim while the latter was grappling with another, rendering him practically helpless and unable to put up any defense. The Court applied this doctrine because Ramon was unarmed, had his back turned, was fighting with Rodel when first stabbed, and was repeatedly stabbed in front while his hands were held behind him, leaving him caught by surprise and defenseless.
• Damages in criminal cases — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Trial courts must specify each item of damages and make a finding thereon in the body of the decision. Actual damages require proof of the actual amount of loss with reasonable certainty and supporting receipts; temperate damages may be awarded when the heirs suffered pecuniary loss but the amount cannot be established with certainty; moral damages may be awarded for mental anguish and distress; exemplary damages are not warranted absent an aggravating circumstance. The Court applied these rules in reducing the award of "other damages" and awarding ₱25,000 temperate and ₱50,000 moral damages while denying exemplary damages.
• Flight as indicative of guilt — Flight is indicative of guilt. The Court considered accused-appellant's failure to surrender, escape to Laguna, and hiding for more than a year until arrest as contradicting his claim of self-defense.

• "Parole refers to the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he serves the minimum term of his prison sentence. The grant thereof does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender. Parole is not one of the modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code." — This passage defines parole and states the ratio for rejecting the argument that the appeal was mooted by accused-appellant's release.
• "He who admits killing or fatally injuring another in the name of self-defense bears the burden of proving: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of his victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on his part." — This passage states the elements and burden of proof for self-defense, which the Court applied in rejecting accused-appellant's claim.
• "Treachery is present where the assailant stabbed the victim while the latter was grappling with another thus, rendering him practically helpless and unable to put up any defense." — This passage is the Court's canonical formulation of treachery under the facts, quoted from People vs. Fabrigas, Jr.
• "The award of actual damages is proper only if the actual amount of loss was proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. It should be supported by receipts." — This passage states the evidentiary standard for actual damages, which the Court applied in disallowing the ₱100,000 award for "other damages."

• People vs. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 139970, June 6, 2002, 383 SCRA 250 — Cited for the elements of self-defense and the rule that the accused bears the burden of proving them clearly and convincingly, and that self-defense relies first on proof of unlawful aggression.
• Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 41061, July 16, 1990, 187 SCRA 484 — Cited for the rule that the nature, number, and location of the wounds sustained by the victim disprove a claim of self-defense.
• People vs. Pateo, G.R. No. 156786, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 609 — Cited for the rule that wounds inflicted by the accused indicated a determined effort to kill and not merely to defend.
• People vs. Fabrigas, Jr., 330 Phil. 137 (1996), citing People vs. Lingatong, G.R. No. 34019, January 29, 1990, 181 SCRA 424 — Cited for the rule that treachery is present where the assailant stabbed the victim while the latter was grappling with another, rendering him practically helpless and unable to put up any defense.
• People vs. Masagnay, G.R. No. 137364, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 572 — Cited for the rules on specification of damages, proof of actual damages, and award of temperate damages.
• People vs. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 64 — Cited for the rule that an appeal in a criminal proceeding opens the entire case for review.
• People vs. Rabanillo, 367 Phil. 114 (1999) — Cited for the rule that review includes the indemnity and damages involved.

• Article 89, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates the modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability; parole is not among them, so the grant of parole did not extinguish accused-appellant's criminal liability.
• Article 113, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy civil liability notwithstanding service of sentence or release by parole or other reason; thus accused-appellant's civil liability subsisted despite parole.
• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable; cited as basis for reviewing and awarding civil indemnity and damages.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder qualified by treachery; the CA and Supreme Court found accused-appellant guilty of murder under this article.
• Section 5, Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) — Cited in relation to parole eligibility based on service of the minimum penalty.
• Section 8, Indeterminate Sentence Law — Provides that a parolee who violates conditions may be rearrested to serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence.
• Section 15(a), Part IV, Revised Rules and Regulations of the Board of Pardons and Parole (November 26, 2002) — Disqualifies from parole those convicted of an offense punished with death penalty, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment; the Board violated this rule in granting parole to accused-appellant.
• Article 2197, Civil Code — Enumerates the kinds of damages: actual or compensatory, moral, nominal, temperate or moderate, liquidated, and exemplary or corrective.
• Article 1231, Civil Code — Provides the modes of extinguishing obligations; cited in relation to Article 112 of the Revised Penal Code on extinction of civil liability.
• Article 112, Revised Penal Code — Provides that civil liability is extinguished in the same manner as other obligations in accordance with civil law.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Associate Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, and Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia concurred.