People vs. Bajar

A plea of self-defense must be proved by the accused through unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation; if uncorroborated and contradicted by positive eyewitness testimony, it cannot prevail. Treachery is sufficiently alleged when the information specifies the attendant circumstance, even without using the word “qualifying.”

Alejandro Bajar was married to Lolita Bajar and was the son-in-law of Aquilio Tiwanak. Ana Bajar Rabor and Alma Luna Bajar, Alejandro’s daughters, testified for the prosecution. The killing was prosecuted as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with treachery alleged in the amended information and with dwelling, superior strength, disregard of age, habitual intoxication, and relationship alleged as aggravating circumstances.

Alejandro Bajar, who declared in open court that he was 58 years old, was the husband of Lolita Bajar and the son-in-law of Aquilio Tiwanak. On 16 August 1999, Ana Bajar Rabor, a resident of Wao, Bukidnon, visited her parents in their house in Sitio Mohon, Mambayaan, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. At around 3:00 p.m., Alejandro arrived home already very drunk. At 5:00 p.m., Lolita suggested that Ana sleep at the house of her maternal grandfather, Aquilio, which was one hundred meters away from Lolita’s house.

That night, at around 8:00 p.m., Ana was listening to the radio while lying on the floor of the bedroom in her grandfather’s house. With her were her one-year-old daughter Maybe Ann, her eleven-year-old sister Alma Bajar, and her two-year-old niece May Joy Labandia. Ana lay on the side of a wall separating the bedroom from the sala; the wall was made of bamboo splits with holes or gaps, and through them she could clearly see Aquilio lying on his bed in the sala. A gas lamp lit the bedroom, while another hung on the wall near the foot of Aquilio’s bed.

Alejandro, still obviously very drunk, broke the scene by asking whether his wife was in the house. He pushed the main door to enter but could not. Aquilio answered that his wife was in their own house. Alejandro accused Aquilio of lying and of hiding his daughter, and Aquilio told Alejandro to go home. Silence followed. Suddenly, Ana heard a sound and saw Alejandro enter through the kitchen door carrying a bolo and approaching her grandfather. She saw Alejandro hack Aquilio, who was lying on the bed. Ana got up, ran toward the sala, and saw her father still hacking her grandfather. She yelled for him to stop. While being stabbed and attacked, Aquilio stood up to embrace his son-in-law. Ana shouted for help as she held down the hand Alejandro used to wield the bolo.

Alma witnessed these last scenes: she saw Ana trying to stay the hand of their father which held the bolo, and Aquilio embracing Alejandro while being hacked. Lolita, having heard Ana’s cries, came to her father’s house and saw Aquilio embracing Alejandro. She instructed Ana to hold Alejandro while she looked for a piece of wood, and with the wood she found she struck Alejandro’s head three times. Alejandro fainted. Aquilio slowly sank to the floor and drew his last breath. Lolita went outside to seek help; Ana’s uncle Tating Aganap arrived and later brought two policemen, who handcuffed Alejandro. Lolita testified that she spent P30,000 for Aquilio’s burial expenses and described her sorrow as not quantifiable by money. To prove Aquilio’s age, she presented his Identification Card from the Veterans Federation of the Philippines, which indicated that he was born on 12 May 1914, making him 85 years old.

Dr. Angelita Enopia, the Health Officer of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, confirmed her postmortem findings and the death certificate she issued. She claimed that Aquilio suffered three big wounds: one on the maxilliary area on the right cheek slanting toward the mouth, one on the anterior chest left side downward to the armpit, and one straight to the scapular area at the back. She opined that the injuries were probably caused by a sharp object such as a bolo or a knife.

The defense presented Alejandro as its lone witness. He testified that on the date and time in question he left his two daughters Ana and Alma and his two grandchildren Mary Joy and Ann-Ann at his house and proceeded to his father-in-law’s house to look for his wife. Upon arrival, he greeted Aquilio with respect: “Pa, good evening.” Aquilio replied that Lolita was not there and invited Alejandro to go up and see for himself. Alejandro went up, and not finding his wife, said: “She is not here Pa.” Aquilio angrily retorted: “Everytime you are drunk you come here to ask me.” Aquilio then suddenly clubbed Alejandro on the head with a 2 x 3 coco lumber he saw near the door. Alejandro touched his head and saw blood on his hand; he felt dizzy. Seeing that Aquilio was about to attack him again, he drew out his hunting knife and defended himself by moving his hand from right to left. He felt he hit something before he lost consciousness. He regained consciousness at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center and discovered that a policeman had brought him there for treatment of his head wound. He was found to have sustained “sutured wound 4 cm. left temporo-occipital area; lacerated wound 3 cm. left alteral neck area and confluent abrasion 3 pts. 1 x 1 cm. 2 x 1 cm. and 1 x 1 cm., left knee,” with seven days healing period. Alejandro was later brought to the Balingasag Municipal Jail, where his two children and wife visited him and informed him that Aquilio was already dead. He cried when he learned the news and begged for his wife’s forgiveness.

The RTC credited the positive, categorical, spontaneous, and straightforward declarations of Alejandro’s daughters and wife on how Aquilio was killed and rejected Alejandro’s uncorroborated and unsubstantiated self-defense theory as self-serving. It was convinced that “no wife in her right mind would testify in a heinous crime against her husband, and no daughter in her right mind would testify in a heinous crime against her father, unless the crime charged is true.”

• Self-Defense: Petitioner Alejandro argued that all the elements of self-defense were present: he lacked sufficient provocation because he respectfully greeted Aquilio and mildly asked about his wife; Aquilio suddenly and angrily clubbed him on the head with a piece of wood; and he used the hunting knife, the only weapon available, to parry imminent blows, showing reasonable necessity of the means employed.
• Treachery: Petitioner argued that treachery was not proved because Ana could not have seen how the attack commenced, as she was lying on the bedroom floor about a meter from the dividing wall and four to five meters from Aquilio’s bed; her cross-examination was unclear whether she saw Alejandro’s approach or only the later thrust; and there was no direct evidence that the commencement of the attack was sudden and unexpected. He further argued that even if treachery was present, it was not specifically alleged in the information as qualifying, so it could only be a generic aggravating circumstance.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Petitioner argued that aside from Aquilio being 85 years old, no specific fact or circumstance proved disregard of age, and there was no clear proof that his intoxication was habitual or intentional.

• Self-Defense: Respondent countered that the uncorroborated plea of self-defense was inconsistent with the established evidence on record.
• Treachery and Aggravating Circumstances: Respondent argued that treachery and the aggravating circumstances of intoxication, dwelling, disrespect of the victim on account of age, and relationship were properly appreciated; treachery was properly, validly, and sufficiently alleged in the information. Citing People vs. Aquino, it claimed that the words “aggravating/qualifying,” “qualifying,” “qualified by,” “aggravating or aggravated by” need not be expressly stated as long as the particular attendant circumstances are specified in the information. It also argued that Alejandro failed to raise during trial the alleged defect in the information, indicating that the information properly forewarned him that treachery attended Aquilio’s killing.
• Relief: Respondent prayed for the affirmance in toto of the RTC decision.

• Self-Defense: Whether Alejandro Bajar proved all the elements of self-defense to warrant acquittal.
• Treachery: Whether treachery was proved and sufficiently alleged in the information to qualify the killing as murder.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether dwelling, disregard of respect due to the victim on account of age, relationship, and habitual intoxication were properly appreciated.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed.
• Damages: Whether the awards of burial expenses, temperate damages, moral damages, civil indemnity, and exemplary damages were proper.

• Self-Defense: No. The accused failed to prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation; the evidence showed he was the aggressor.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery was proved by Ana’s testimony and was sufficiently alleged in the information by specifying the attendant circumstance.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Partly yes. Dwelling, relationship, and disregard of respect due to age were properly appreciated; intoxication was not proved habitual or intentional.
• Penalty: Yes. Death was properly imposed under Article 248 in relation to Article 63 because of the generic aggravating circumstances and absence of mitigating circumstances.
• Damages: Partly yes. The P30,000 burial expenses were deleted for lack of receipts; P25,000 temperate damages and P50,000 moral damages were awarded; P50,000 civil indemnity and P25,000 exemplary damages were affirmed.

• Self-Defense: The SC applied the settled rule that when credibility is in issue, appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s findings because it heard the witnesses and observed their deportment, unless the evaluation was arbitrary or the trial court overlooked or misapplied facts of weight and substance. It found no exception. The prosecution witnesses Lolita, Ana, and Alma corroborated each other on material points: Ana saw through the gaps in the bamboo wall, and then from the sala, how Alejandro stealthily entered Aquilio’s house, surreptitiously approached the sleeping Aquilio, and surprised him with bolo hackings; Lolita heard Ana’s shouts and saw Ana trying to prevent further attack; Lolita clubbed Alejandro’s head with coconut lumber; Ana and Alma corroborated this. By invoking self-defense, Alejandro bore the burden of proving (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on his part. He failed to prove these; the records established he was the aggressor, and without unlawful aggression there can be no viable self-defense. His claim that Aquilio suddenly clubbed him with coco lumber was doubtful and refuted by the prosecution testimony that it was Lolita who looked for a piece of wood to stop him; his claim of using a hunting knife was also disproved by witnesses who saw him use a bolo against the defenseless Aquilio. An unsubstantiated self-defense is similar to a bare denial and cannot prevail over categorical testimony that rings of truth, especially where the wife and children testified against him.
• Treachery: The SC defined treachery as employing means, methods, or forms in the execution of crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. Two elements must concur: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. Ana’s testimony proved treachery: after Aquilio told Alejandro to go home, silence followed and it was apparent Aquilio resumed his interrupted sleep; even Ana remained in the bedroom lying down and ready to sleep; Aquilio and his grandchildren had no inkling Alejandro would trespass by entering through the kitchen door; Aquilio was completely unaware of the impending attack; and Alejandro suddenly hacked him on the face while he was lying down resting on his bed. The means, method, and form of attack were consciously adopted and effectively forestalled Aquilio from defending himself. On the information, the SC held treachery was sufficiently alleged because the information stated that Alejandro, “then armed with a sharp bolo, with intent to kill, and with evident premeditation, and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one 85-year-old Aquilio Tiwanak.” This sufficiently warned him of treachery, which once proved qualifies the crime as murder. The first paragraph satisfied the Rules requirement that qualifying circumstances be specifically alleged to comply with the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, allowing the accused to prepare for defense and prevent surprises. What informs the accused is the specific allegation of circumstances mentioned in the law that raise the crime to a higher category. Under People vs. Aquino, the specific allegation of the attendant circumstance, not the use of words aggravating or qualifying, raises the crime to a higher category; the words qualifying, qualified by, aggravating, or aggravated by need not be expressly stated as long as the particular attendant circumstances are specified. Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 merely require the information to allege, specify, or enumerate the attendant circumstances mentioned in the law that qualify or aggravate the offense.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The SC held dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, who has not given any provocation; it is aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode, and he who goes to another’s house to hurt him is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. Aquilio did not provoke Alejandro; Alejandro rudely and drunkenly interrupted the quiet and restful evening Aquilio was enjoying, attempted to enter the house without being invited and without the door being opened for him, and after Aquilio told him to go home, a quietude descended which Alejandro used as cover to pursue his plan to kill Aquilio; he doubly violated the sanctity of Aquilio’s abode by trespassing through the kitchen door and killing him. On disregard of respect due to age, it is present when the offended person, by reason of age, could be the father of the offender; Aquilio was old enough to be Alejandro’s father, and was actually his father-in-law, reinforcing the circumstance by their relationship by affinity; Philippine culture respects those advanced in age especially in the provinces. The alternative circumstance of relationship was correctly appreciated because the victim was Alejandro’s father-in-law. On intoxication, Article 15 requires it to be habitual or intentional to be aggravating; Lolita testified that Alejandro would drink liquor once a week but was not a frequent drinker, and admitted there was a fiesta celebration at Barangay Mambayaan on that day; it was natural for him to drink during fiesta, and absent clear and positive proof that intoxication was habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime, it was improper to consider it aggravating. It could not be mitigating either because there was no proof he was so drunk that his will-power was impaired or that he could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts.
• Penalty: Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. With the attendance of the generic aggravating circumstances of dwelling, disregard of the respect due to the offended party by reason of age, and relationship, without any mitigating circumstance to offset them, the imposition of the death penalty is justified pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Damages: The SC agreed that the trial court erred in awarding P30,000 as burial expenses for lack of receipts. It held that a party seeking actual damages must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify the award; only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of the victim, will be recognized. Nonetheless, in line with new jurisprudence, it awarded temperate damages of P25,000 because the heirs clearly incurred funeral expenses. It observed that no moral damages were decreed by the trial court; Lolita testified that no monetary consideration could equal a daughter’s loss of her father. In recent jurisprudence, the SC held that moral damages are mandatory in murder and homicide cases, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, because a violent death invariably and necessarily brings emotional pain and anguish to the victim’s family; it awarded P50,000 moral damages. It affirmed P50,000 death indemnity and P25,000 exemplary damages by virtue of the attendance of three aggravating circumstances, pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.

• Self-defense — A plea of self-defense requires the accused to prove (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. The burden is on the accused; uncorroborated self-defense is similar to a bare denial and cannot prevail over positive, categorical testimony. Applied: Alejandro failed to prove the requisites, and the evidence showed he was the aggressor.
• Treachery — Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. Two elements must concur: (1) the means of execution gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. Applied: Alejandro suddenly hacked the sleeping Aquilio after stealthily entering through the kitchen door, forestalling any defense.
• Sufficiency of allegation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances — The information must specifically allege the attendant circumstances mentioned in the law that qualify or aggravate the offense; the words “qualifying,” “qualified by,” “aggravating,” or “aggravated by” need not be expressly stated. Applied: treachery was sufficiently alleged because the information specified it and the acts constituting the killing.
• Dwelling as aggravating circumstance — Dwelling aggravates a felony when the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party who has not given provocation, because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. Applied: Alejandro trespassed into Aquilio’s house through the kitchen door and killed him there without provocation.
• Disregard of respect due to age — This aggravating circumstance is present when the offended person, by reason of age, could be the father of the offender. Applied: Aquilio was 85 years old and old enough to be Alejandro’s father; he was also Alejandro’s father-in-law, reinforcing the circumstance.
• Relationship as alternative circumstance — Relationship is an alternative circumstance under Article 15; it was correctly appreciated as aggravating because the victim was Alejandro’s father-in-law.
• Intoxication as aggravating circumstance — Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, intoxication is aggravating only when habitual or intentional, or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. Applied: Alejandro’s intoxication was not shown to be habitual or intentional; it was not aggravating and could not be mitigating absent proof that his will-power was impaired.
• Damages in murder and homicide — Actual damages require competent proof or the best evidence obtainable; temperate damages may be awarded when funeral expenses were clearly incurred but not substantiated by receipts; moral damages are mandatory in murder and homicide without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim; exemplary damages may be awarded when aggravating circumstances attend the crime. Applied: burial expenses were deleted, temperate and moral damages were awarded, and civil indemnity and exemplary damages were affirmed.

• “A plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated, especially when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.” — The SC used this rule to reject Bajar’s uncorroborated self-defense against the prosecution eyewitnesses.
• “For treachery to be appreciated, the offender must have employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.” — The SC used this definition to hold that the sudden hacking of the sleeping Aquilio was treacherous.
• “Thus, the words qualifying, qualified by, aggravating, or aggravated by need not be expressly stated as long as the particular attendant circumstances are specified in the information.” — The SC used this rule to reject Bajar’s claim that treachery had to be expressly labeled as qualifying in the information.
• “In recent jurisprudence, we held that the award of moral damages is mandatory in cases of murder and homicide, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim.” — The SC used this rule to award P50,000 moral damages despite the trial court’s failure to decree them.

• People vs. Aquino, G.R. Nos. 144340-42, 6 August 2002 — Controlling precedent on the sufficiency of allegation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances; reiterated.
• People vs. Solayao, G.R. No. 137043, 12 December 2001, 372 SCRA 162, 169 — Cited for the two elements of treachery.
• People vs. Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, 4 December 2000, 346 SCRA 807, 818 — Cited for dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.
• U.S. vs. Esmedia, 17 Phil. 260 (1910) — Cited for disregard of respect due to age when the victim could be the offender’s father.
• People vs. Bañez, G.R. No. 125849, 20 January 1999, 301 SCRA 248 — Cited for the rule that intoxication must be habitual or intentional to be aggravating.
• People vs. De los Santos, G.R. No. 135919, 9 May 2003 — Cited for the award of temperate damages in lieu of unsubstantiated burial expenses.
• People vs. Panado, supra, at 690-691 — Cited for the mandatory award of moral damages in murder and homicide.
• People vs. Panganiban, G.R. Nos. 138439-41, 25 June 2001, 359 SCRA 509, 519 — Cited for deference to the trial court’s credibility findings.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and prescribes reclusion perpetua to death; applied because treachery qualified the killing and generic aggravating circumstances attended it.
• Article 14, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code — Dwelling was appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because the killing took place in Aquilio’s dwelling without provocation.
• Article 15, Revised Penal Code — Relationship and intoxication are alternative circumstances; relationship was appreciated because Aquilio was Alejandro’s father-in-law, while intoxication was not aggravating or mitigating because it was not shown to be habitual or intentional and there was no proof of impaired will-power.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Rules for indivisible penalties; with generic aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the death penalty was imposed.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Exemplary damages were awarded because of the attendance of aggravating circumstances.
• Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Require the information to allege, specify, or enumerate qualifying and aggravating circumstances; satisfied by the specific allegation of treachery.
• Article 47, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659 — Basis for automatic review of the death penalty conviction.
• Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation — The SC held the information sufficiently alleged treachery to satisfy this right and allow Bajar to prepare his defense.