People vs. Dolorido

Self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be successfully invoked absent proof of unlawful aggression, and treachery qualifies a killing as murder where the accused deliberately adopts a sudden and unexpected attack that renders the victim defenseless. The accused bears the burden of proving all the elements of self-defense.

Daniel Estose owned a coconut farm in Cagdapao, Tago, Surigao del Sur, where Aniolito Avila and Adrian Avila worked as hired laborers tasked to harvest coconuts. The case against Rogelio Dolorido for Estose’s death was governed by the Revised Penal Code provisions on self-defense, treachery, murder, and damages.

On May 9, 2006, at around 8:30 a.m., in Barangay Cagdapao, Tago, Surigao del Sur, Daniel Estose was killed. The Information charged Rogelio Dolorido y Estrada with murder, alleging that he, armed with a bolo, with evident premeditation and treachery and intent to kill, attacked, assaulted, and hacked Estose, causing his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs in the amounts of P70,000 as life indemnity, P10,000 as moral damage, and P10,000 as exemplary damages. On November 15, 2006, Dolorido was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. During the January 18, 2007 pre-trial conference, Dolorido admitted that he killed Estose but invoked self-defense; the prosecution and defense stipulated that the Joint Affidavit of Aniolito Avila and Adrian Avila would constitute their direct testimony subject to cross-examination, and that Dolorido’s Counter Affidavit and Mario Jariol’s Affidavit would constitute their direct testimony subject to cross-examination by the prosecution.

At trial, the prosecution presented the Avilas and Loreta Estose, while the defense presented Dolorido as its sole witness. The Avilas were hired laborers of Estose tasked to harvest coconuts in his farm. On May 9, 2006, while walking toward the coconut plantation at around 8:30 a.m., they saw Dolorido standing near Estose’s coconut drier, appearing very angry. After some time, Dolorido proceeded to Rustica Dolorido’s coconut drier located a hundred meters away and hid behind a coconut tree.

Moments later, the Avilas saw Estose on his way to his own coconut drier. When Estose passed by Rustica Dolorido’s coconut drier, Dolorido suddenly hacked Estose twice, causing wounds on his arms. When Estose tried to retreat, he fell down, and Dolorido stabbed him on the left portion of his chest, causing his death. Dolorido then suddenly left. Afraid of Dolorido’s wrath, the Avilas did not immediately proceed to the scene; only after about 20 minutes did they approach, and they saw Estose already dead. They waited for Estose’s wife and the police.

Dolorido’s defense was self-defense. He testified that on the day of the killing, he asked Estose why he was gathering Dolorido’s harvested coconuts; Estose replied, “So, what about it?” and tried to unsheathe his bolo from its scabbard. Upon seeing this, Dolorido drew his own bolo and stabbed Estose. When Estose tried to wrestle for the bolo, he sustained some wounds; afterwards, while Dolorido was pointing the bolo at Estose, Estose suddenly lunged at Dolorido, causing Estose to hit the bolo with his own chest, which resulted in his death. Dolorido denied hiding behind a coconut tree and waiting for Estose. Thereafter, accompanied by Mario Jariol, he voluntarily surrendered to the Tago Police Station.

The RTC found Dolorido’s account too incredible to be believed. It reasoned that if Estose had failed to unsheathe his bolo because Dolorido hacked him, Estose could not then have attempted to dispossess Dolorido of the bolo; the RTC concluded that Dolorido waylaid Estose, as the prosecution witnesses testified.

• Self-Defense: Dolorido argued that the trial court failed to consider unlawful aggression on the part of Estose; he contended that he acted in self-defense and that this was why he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.
• Treachery: Dolorido argued that the trial court should not have appreciated treachery because it was impossible for the two prosecution witnesses to see the inception and actual attack since they were busy gathering coconuts and were 50 meters away from the stabbing, with rolling hills and tall and short shrubs between them and the scene.
• Damages: Dolorido argued that the trial court erred in awarding damages despite the prosecution’s failure to present evidence to support the claim.

• Self-Defense: Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the self-defense interposed by Dolorido.
• Treachery: Whether the trial court erred in convicting Dolorido of murder despite the prosecution’s failure to prove the elements of treachery.
• Damages: Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages despite the prosecution’s failure to present evidence to support the claim.

• Self-Defense: No. Dolorido failed to prove unlawful aggression, the most important element of self-defense; his incredible and uncorroborated testimony could not overcome the prosecution witnesses’ positive declarations.
• Treachery: No. Treachery was present because Dolorido hid behind a coconut tree and suddenly attacked the unsuspecting Estose, who could only parry with his bare hands and was stabbed when he fell, rendering him defenseless.
• Damages: No. The awards were proper; the SC sustained P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, and P25,000 temperate damages, and added P30,000 exemplary damages plus 6% interest per annum.

• Self-Defense: The SC applied the three requisites of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. The accused bears the burden of proving all the elements. Unlawful aggression is the most important element and must be proved first; there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim committed unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury; if a threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury; it presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger, not merely threatening and intimidating action, and is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life. The SC found Dolorido failed to prove it. His story that Estose tried to unsheathe his bolo was incredible: if Estose failed to unsheathe it because Dolorido hacked him, Estose could not have attempted to wrest Dolorido’s bolo. The RTC found Dolorido waylaid Estose. Against the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses that Dolorido hacked Estose twice and stabbed him without provocation, Dolorido’s self-serving and uncorroborated assertion deserved scant consideration. A plea of self-defense cannot be entertained when it is not only uncorroborated by separate competent evidence but also extremely doubtful in itself. Absent any showing that the prosecution witnesses were moved by improper motive, their testimonies were entitled to full faith and credit. Thus, absent unlawful aggression, Dolorido could not successfully invoke self-defense.

• Treachery: The SC applied paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the offender. The evidence showed that Dolorido hid behind a coconut tree and, when Estose passed by completely unaware of any danger, immediately hacked him with a bolo. Estose could only attempt to parry the blows with his bare hands and got wounded; when he tried to retreat and stumbled, Dolorido stabbed him, causing his death. The means employed assured Dolorido of no risk arising from the defense Estose might make; the attack was executed in a manner that rendered the victim defenseless and unable to retaliate. The SC found no reason to disturb the trial court’s credibility findings, especially since they were affirmed by the CA. All the elements of murder under paragraph 1 of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code were proved: a person was killed; the accused killed that person; the killing was attended by treachery; and the killing was not infanticide or parricide. The prosecution was not required to show guilt with absolute certainty; moral certainty was sufficient, and the SC found it present.

• Damages: The SC applied the rule in People vs. Beltran, Jr. that when death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages. Under People vs. Sanchez, when the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the damages are P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages; these amounts were proper because of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender without any aggravating circumstance to offset it. The P25,000 temperate damages was proper in homicide or murder cases when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented, since Article 2224 of the Civil Code allows temperate damages when the exact amount of pecuniary loss cannot be proved but the heirs’ loss cannot be denied. The SC sustained the P25,000 temperate damages and added P30,000 exemplary damages, plus interest at 6% per annum on the civil indemnity and moral, temperate, and exemplary damages from finality until fully paid.

• Self-defense — The requisites are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. The accused bears the burden of proving all elements. The SC applied this and found Dolorido failed because unlawful aggression was absent.
• Unlawful aggression — Actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury; if a threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury; it presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger, not merely threatening and intimidating action; it is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life. The SC applied this and found it absent.
• Treachery — Under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The requisites are: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. Its essence is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the offender. The SC applied this because Dolorido hid and suddenly attacked Estose.
• Murder — The elements under Article 248, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed that person; (3) the killing was attended by treachery; and (4) the killing is not infanticide or parricide. The SC found all elements proved.
• Damages in murder or homicide — When death occurs due to a crime, recoverable damages include civil indemnity ex delicto, actual or compensatory damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages. When the penalty is reclusion perpetua, the amounts are P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, and P30,000 exemplary damages; temperate damages of P25,000 are proper when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented; interest at 6% per annum runs from finality. The SC applied these rules.
• Credibility of witnesses — The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination; this rule is more binding and conclusive when affirmed by the appellate court. The SC applied this and deferred to the RTC’s findings.

• “A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof of proving all the elements.” — The SC used this to place the burden on Dolorido and reject his defense because he did not prove unlawful aggression.
• “There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.” — The SC quoted People vs. Catbagan to stress that unlawful aggression is indispensable.
• “The ‘essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself.’” — The SC used this definition to characterize Dolorido’s hiding and sudden attack as treacherous.
• “When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages.” — The SC cited People vs. Beltran, Jr. to list the damages and justify the award.

• People vs. Catbagan, G.R. Nos. 149430-32, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 535 — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that no self-defense, complete or incomplete, lies without unlawful aggression.
• People vs. Beltran, Jr., G.R. No. 168051, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 715 — Cited for the list of damages recoverable when death occurs due to a crime.
• People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 131116, August 27, 1999, 313 SCRA 254 — Cited for the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages when the penalty is reclusion perpetua.
• People vs. Dacillo, G.R. No. 149368, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 528 — Cited for the rule that temperate damages may be awarded in homicide or murder when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented.
• People vs. Aburque, G.R. No. 181085, October 23, 2009, 604 SCRA 384 — Cited for the rule that a self-defense plea cannot be entertained when uncorroborated and extremely doubtful, and that prosecution witnesses with no improper motive are entitled to full faith and credit.
• People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 118649, March 9, 1998, 287 SCRA 229 — Cited for the two elements of treachery.
• People vs. Escote, Jr., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003, 400 SCRA 603 — Cited for the essence of treachery as a sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim.
• People vs. Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001, 369 SCRA 47 — Cited for the rule that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is best and becomes more binding when affirmed by the appellate court.

• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make; applied to qualify the killing as murder.
• Article 248, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and its elements; applied because the SC found a person was killed, Dolorido killed him, the killing was attended by treachery, and it was not infanticide or parricide.
• Article 2224, Civil Code — Allows temperate damages when the exact amount of pecuniary loss cannot be proved; applied to sustain the P25,000 temperate damages award.
• Rule 133, Section 2, Rules of Court — Requires moral certainty, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind, in criminal cases; applied to find the prosecution discharged its burden.