People vs. Concillado

When an accused admits the commission of the crime but claims the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, who must clearly establish unlawful aggression by the victim; failure to do so results in conviction.

In the early morning of August 24, 2002, Diosdado Pido was shot, stabbed, and hacked in Barangay Guinciaman, San Miguel, Leyte, sustaining a total of 26 wounds that caused his instantaneous death. Edgar Concillado, along with Erlito Concillado and Dolores Concillado, was charged with murder in an Information alleging conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. Edgar later admitted to inflicting all the wounds but claimed he acted in self-preservation after the victim suddenly challenged him to a fight and hacked him near his fence.

• The Incident: Diosdado Pido suffered 26 incised, stab, and bullet wounds and died instantly in the early morning of August 24, 2002. Prosecution eyewitness Lorenzo Viñas testified that he saw Edgar shoot the victim with a homemade gun ("surit"), after which Edgar and Dolores simultaneously stabbed the fallen victim, and Erlito delivered hacking blows.
• Accused's Version: Edgar admitted inflicting all 26 wounds but claimed self-defense. He testified that while urinating near his fence, the victim suddenly challenged him to a fight and hacked him. Edgar ran to his door, retrieved his "surit," and fired. He then grabbed a long bolo, and they exchanged blows until the victim turned his back. Dolores claimed she was asleep upstairs and later hid among grasses, while Erlito claimed he was at a fiesta in another barangay.
• Medical Findings: Dr. De Veyra's necropsy report detailed the victim's 26 wounds. He also testified that Edgar suffered three superficial incised wounds on his right chest, right collarbone, and left forearm, which could have been caused by a sharp-bladed instrument.
• Surrender: Police blotter entries showed Edgar voluntarily surrendered to the police at around 1:10 a.m. or 3:30 a.m. on August 24, 2002, admitting he killed the victim with a long bolo.
• RTC Ruling: The RTC gave credence to the prosecution eyewitness, found conspiracy among the three accused, and appreciated the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, convicting all three of murder and imposing the death penalty. It rejected Edgar's self-defense claim based on the nature, number, and location of the victim's wounds and the physical impossibility of the victim attacking Edgar over a four-foot-high bamboo fence.
• CA Ruling: The CA discredited the eyewitness, finding it unnatural for him to merely stare during a frenzied attack and noting inconsistencies. It acquitted Dolores and Erlito for lack of evidence of their culpability. However, it convicted Edgar of homicide—rejecting his self-defense but finding no proof of treachery or evident premeditation—and appreciated voluntary surrender.

• Self-Defense: Petitioner Edgar Concillado insisted that he acted in self-defense and should be acquitted, arguing he was only protecting himself from the incessant thrusts and hacking blows initiated by the victim.

• Insufficiency of Self-Defense: Respondent People of the Philippines countered that Edgar's claim of self-defense was not established by clear and convincing evidence.
• Proper Conviction for Murder: Respondent maintained that Edgar should be convicted of murder, not homicide, arguing that the qualifying circumstances were duly proven.

• Self-Defense: Whether the justifying circumstance of self-defense was properly appreciated in favor of the accused.
• Nature of the Offense: Whether the crime committed is murder or homicide.
• Damages: Whether the award of damages was proper.

• Self-Defense: Self-defense was not established. Unlawful aggression—the most essential element—was negated by the physical impossibility of the victim attacking the accused over a four-foot-high bamboo fence while the accused was 1.5 meters away, and by the absence of blood traces in the accused's yard. Furthermore, the gross disparity between the victim's 26 wounds and the accused's three superficial wounds, coupled with the accused's admission that he continued to inflict injuries on the lifeless victim, belied the claim of self-preservation.
• Nature of the Offense: The crime is homicide, not murder. With the eyewitness's testimony properly discredited by the CA, no evidence remained to show how the attack commenced or was perpetrated. Absent any proof of the manner of execution ensuring the victim's safety from retaliation, or proof of the time the accused decided to commit the crime and his overt acts clinging to that determination, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation could not be appreciated.
• Damages: The award of civil indemnity was retained. The deletion of moral damages by the CA was reversed, as moral damages are mandatory in homicide cases without need of proof other than the death of the victim. Temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 were awarded in lieu of actual damages, which were not substantiated by receipts. A 6% legal interest on all monetary awards was imposed from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

• Burden of Proof in Self-Defense — When the accused admits the commission of the offense but raises a justifying circumstance, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, who must rely on the strength of his own evidence rather than the weakness of the prosecution's.
• Unlawful Aggression — The most essential element of self-defense. It presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Physical impossibility of the victim mounting an attack negates unlawful aggression.
• Disparity of Wounds — The nature, number, and location of the wounds sustained by the victim disprove a plea of self-defense, especially when the victim suffers numerous fatal wounds while the accused sustains only minor or superficial injuries.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — Requires that the malefactor employ means, methods, or manner of execution that ensure safety from the victim's defensive or retaliatory acts, and that such means were deliberately adopted. It must be present at the inception of the attack.
• Evident Premeditation — Requires proof of (1) the time the accused decided to commit the crime, (2) an overt act manifestly indicating determination, and (3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution allowing reflection. Mere presumptions are insufficient.
• Voluntary Surrender — Requires that the surrender be spontaneous, unconditional, and made to a person in authority, demonstrating an intent to submit oneself unconditionally.
• Moral Damages in Homicide — The award is mandatory without need of allegation or proof other than the death of the victim.
• Temperate Damages — Awarded under Article 2224 of the Civil Code when pecuniary loss is evident but the exact amount cannot be proved with certainty, such as when funeral expenses are claimed but not supported by receipts.

• "Well-settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. He cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution for even if it is weak, it cannot be doubted especially after he himself has admitted the killing."
• "[T]he most important among all the elements is x x x unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete."
• "As has been repeatedly ruled, the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim disprove a plea of self-defense."

• People v. Mateo — Cited as the controlling procedural precedent requiring that cases where the RTC imposes the death penalty must be referred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review before reaching the Supreme Court.
• People v. Campos — Followed regarding the shift in burden of proof when self-defense is claimed and the definition of unlawful aggression; also followed regarding the rule that actual damages must be supported by receipts.
• People v. Dolorido — Followed for the principle that unlawful aggression must be proved first for self-defense to be appreciated.
• People v. Tomas, Sr. — Followed for the elements of treachery.
• People v. Jarlos — Followed for the elements of evident premeditation.
• People v. Badriago — Followed for the requisites of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.
• People v. Basada — Followed for the award of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
• People v. Domingo — Followed for the mandatory award of moral damages in homicide cases.

• Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code — Justifying circumstance of self-defense. Applied to require the accused to prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation; the defense failed on the first element.
• Article 13(7), Revised Penal Code — Mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Applied to reduce the penalty, as the accused spontaneously surrendered to authorities before his arrest.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Penalty for homicide (reclusion temporal). Applied as the proper penalty given the absence of qualifying circumstances.
• Article 64(2), Revised Penal Code — Rules for applying penalties when only a mitigating circumstance is present. Applied to mandate that the penalty be imposed in its minimum period.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to determine the minimum of the imposable penalty, which must be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree (prision mayor).
• Article 2224, Civil Code — Temperate or moderate damages. Applied to award ₱25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages, as the heirs suffered pecuniary loss but failed to produce receipts.

Renato C. Corona (Chairperson), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr.