People vs. Pagador

Self-defense fails where unlawful aggression is not established, and where the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim belie the claim of defensive action; further, intent to kill must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction for frustrated murder, and treachery cannot be presumed but must be proven by evidence showing the mode of attack was deliberately adopted to ensure execution without risk of retaliation.

Rolly Pagador and Nenita Mendez were sweethearts for more than two years. Pagador, a tricycle driver, was treated as a family member by the Mendez household and was allowed to visit at any hour, even in the early morning. The Mendez family — spouses Herminigildo and Magdalena, and their children Ricardo (an invalid), Emily (married), Nenita, Josephine, Marlyn, Rosalinda, and ten-year-old Shirley — were poor peasants in Alaminos, Pangasinan. Pagador's relationship with Nenita and his unrestricted access to the family home form the backdrop against which the events of October 12, 1996 unfolded.

Rolly Pagador and Nenita Mendez were sweethearts for more than two years. Although Pagador was a mere tricycle driver, the Mendez family welcomed him freely, allowing him to visit their home at any hour, even at one or two o'clock in the morning, and to spend the night with Nenita. He was treated as a member of the family.

On October 12, 1996, at around one o'clock in the morning, Nenita and her sisters Emily, Josephine, and Rosalinda were awakened by shouts from their parents' room. Their mother Magdalena was crying out in pain. Thinking she was suffering another bout of her perennial ailment, the sisters rushed to the room. Emily arrived first, followed by Josephine, then Nenita, and finally Rosalinda. They saw the accused Rolly Pagador kneeling behind their mother, stabbing her in the back with a bolo held in both hands. Their ten-year-old sister Shirley was clutching her wounded stomach while lying on their mother's lap. Their father Herminigildo was sprawled motionless on the floor. The room was illuminated by a kerosene lamp. The four sisters instinctively approached to repulse the assailant, but Pagador swung his bolo at them, cutting Emily's left index finger. Emily fled, picked up her sleeping child, and jumped out the window. Nenita cried out Pagador's name, but he swung the bolo in silent rage; she too retreated and jumped out the window, hiding behind a tamarind tree. She later saw Pagador pass by still wielding the bolo.

Rosalinda bore the brunt of the assault. As the last to leave the parents' room, she fled to her own room, but Pagador pursued her, pulled her hair, and caused her to fall. He sat astride her stomach and hacked and stabbed her repeatedly. When he directed the bolo at her face, Rosalinda gripped the blade and deflected the thrust to her left side. Pagador inflicted additional wounds on her right ear, left breast, left upper arm, and right thigh. To stop the assault, she played dead. Believing she was dead, Pagador stood up and escaped through the window. Rosalinda slowly lost consciousness from profuse bleeding.

Shirley testified that she was awakened when someone struck her stomach and other parts of the body. She saw Pagador swinging a bloodied bolo at her sisters and saw her lifeless parents on the floor, but she could not ascertain who was responsible for her own wounds. Dr. Rafael Manaois testified that Shirley sustained a hacking wound on the lateral neck, a hacking wound on the hypochondriac region with intestinal evisceration, hacking wounds on the arm and forearm, and a stab wound on the back. Dr. Glorioso Maramba interpreted the necropsy report on Herminigildo, finding a semi-circular chop wound on the head and nape, a penetrating stab wound on the sternum, wounds on the thoracic cage, parallel stab wounds on the left shoulder, and a chop wound on the upper arm; cause of death was massive intra-thoracic hemorrhage. Magdalena sustained stab wounds below the scapula and on the lumbar region; cause of death was massive bleeding inside the abdomen and thoracic cavity. Dr. Vicente Tongson examined Rosalinda and found approximately fourteen hacked wounds on various parts of her body, and examined Emily, finding an amputated left index finger and a lacerated wound on the left ring finger.

Pagador denied all accusations. He testified that on the night of October 11, 1996, he had finished work and dropped by the Mendez residence. He greeted Herminigildo, who told him Nenita was asleep. Pagador claimed he was surprised by the old man's hostile attitude, since the family was accustomed to his visits at any hour. He tried to go to Nenita's room, but Herminigildo blocked his way, then returned armed with a bolo and hacked at him. Pagador said he kicked the kerosene lamp and rushed to the couple's room, where Magdalena was already awake. Before she could answer his question about her husband's behavior, Herminigildo barged in and hacked his own wife, believing it was Pagador. Pagador claimed he grappled with Herminigildo for the bolo, gained possession, and hacked the deceased. He denied causing Shirley's injuries and surmised she was wounded during the struggle. He further claimed that the four sisters arrived and manhandled him, and that when Rosalinda tried to grab the bolo, he wrested it and swung at the women without knowing whether anyone was hit. He also claimed that while detained, he learned Herminigildo had committed Nenita to marry a seaman, which explained the hostile treatment.

The trial court found Pagador guilty on all five charges: two counts of murder for the killing of the spouses, and three counts of frustrated murder for the injuries to Shirley, Rosalinda, and Emily, imposing the death penalty for each count of murder. The trial court rejected the plea of self-defense, finding that unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased was not established and that the multiplicity of wounds on the victim belied the claim of defensive action.

• Self-Defense: Accused-appellant maintained that the trial court failed to give weight to his plea of self-defense, asserting that his unrebutted testimony established the elements of justifying circumstance under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. He argued that he had long been visiting the Mendez home and sleeping there; that if he had a bolo and intent to kill, he would have killed Herminigildo at the ground floor rather than in the bedroom; that Herminigildo was the aggressor who struck him with a bolo but accidentally hit his own wife; and that, further enraged, Herminigildo assaulted him more aggressively, leaving him no choice but to disable Herminigildo with the latter's own weapon.
• Absence of Intent to Kill: Accused-appellant bewailed his conviction for frustrated murder as to Shirley and Emily, arguing there was no clear showing of intent to kill. He did not deny hurting Emily and Rosalinda but claimed their injuries were not fatal and that intent to kill was absent. As for Shirley, he emphatically denied laying a hand on her and surmised she was wounded during the struggle with Herminigildo.

• Self-Defense: Whether the accused-appellant's plea of self-defense was properly rejected by the trial court.
• Frustrated Murder — Rosalinda: Whether the accused-appellant was correctly convicted of frustrated murder for the injuries sustained by Rosalinda Mendez.
• Frustrated Murder — Shirley: Whether the accused-appellant was correctly convicted of frustrated murder for the injuries sustained by Shirley Mendez.
• Frustrated Murder — Emily: Whether the accused-appellant was correctly convicted of frustrated murder for the injuries sustained by Emily Mendez.
• Treachery — Killing of Herminigildo: Whether treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance in the killing of Herminigildo Mendez.
• Treachery — Killing of Magdalena: Whether treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance in the killing of Magdalena Mendez.

• Self-Defense: No. The plea of self-defense was properly rejected because unlawful aggression was not established, and the multiplicity and nature of wounds on the victims, coupled with the accused's total lack of injuries, belied the claim of defensive action.
• Frustrated Murder — Rosalinda: Yes. The accused-appellant performed all acts of execution tending to produce Rosalinda's death, and desisted only upon believing she was dead; the subjective phase had been passed, making the crime frustrated murder.
• Frustrated Murder — Shirley: No. The prosecution failed to prove intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt; the crime was reclassified as less serious physical injuries under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Frustrated Murder — Emily: No. The evidence showed the accused merely swung the bolo to drive the sisters away, not to kill; the crime was reclassified as serious physical injuries under Article 263, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Treachery — Killing of Herminigildo: No. Treachery was not proven because no witness saw the actual killing; the manner and mode of attack could not be established with certitude, and the killing was downgraded to homicide.
• Treachery — Killing of Magdalena: Yes. Treachery was properly appreciated because the accused repeatedly stabbed the unarmed victim who was shielding her wounded child and could not mount any defensive or retaliatory measure.

• Self-Defense: For self-defense to prosper, unlawful aggression on the part of the person injured or killed must be established. According to the accused, after he wrested the bolo from Herminigildo, he hacked the deceased. At that point, any unlawful aggression had already ceased because the danger to the accused's life and limb vanished when he gained possession of the weapon. Furthermore, the accused emerged completely unscathed — no lacerations or abrasions — despite claiming violent encounters with an armed man and four enraged women. The multiplicity and nature of the wounds on Herminigildo — stab wounds on the chest, left shoulder, arm, nape, and other portions — were inconsistent with a defensive struggle. The claim that Magdalena was accidentally boloed by her husband was contradicted by the testimony of four prosecution witnesses who saw the accused repeatedly stabbing their mother at the back, and the autopsy report showed several hacking wounds indicative of a deliberate attempt to kill. A plea of self-defense that is uncorroborated and extremely doubtful must fail.

• Frustrated Murder — Rosalinda: The accused had performed all acts of execution which tended to produce the death of Rosalinda. He chased her, pulled her hair, sat astride her stomach, and hacked and stabbed her multiple times. He desisted only because he believed she was dead, not knowing she was feigning death. Under the doctrine of the subjective phase, as articulated in People vs. Eduave, the subjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the crime between the act which begins consummation and the last act performed by the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. If the offender is not stopped by any cause outside his voluntary resistance but continues until he performs the last act, the crime is frustrated. Since the accused voluntarily desisted upon believing his purpose was accomplished, the subjective phase had been passed, and the crime was frustrated murder.

• Frustrated Murder — Shirley: The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide or murder is the intent on the part of the assailant to take the life of the person attacked. Such intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt. Although it could be safely assumed that the injuries sustained by Shirley were inflicted by the accused, the factual environment was inconclusive as to whether he was impelled to injure her purposely to kill her. Shirley herself testified only that she was awakened when someone struck her. No one except probably the accused could shed light on the circumstances, but the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. When intent to kill is lacking but wounds were inflicted, the crime is physical injuries — less serious physical injuries in this case, as the medico-legal expert opined the wounds would require medical attendance of more than fourteen days.

• Frustrated Murder — Emily: The injuries inflicted on Emily could not be attributed with certainty to a murderous intent. Emily testified that as she approached her mother, the accused swung his bolo, cutting her left index finger and lacerating her left ring finger. The accused did not pursue her as she ran out and jumped through the window. His apparent purpose was merely to drive away the sisters and dissuade them from attacking him. Finding no trace of intent or inclination to kill Emily, and recognizing that criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, the crime was reclassified as serious physical injuries under Article 263, paragraph 3, since Emily lost her left index finger by amputation.

• Treachery — Killing of Herminigildo: Treachery as a qualifying circumstance may not be deduced from mere presumptions. The employment of means and methods tending directly and especially to ensure execution of the crime must be proved with convincing evidence. Treachery could not be appreciated because there was no showing that the accused adopted a mode of attack to ensure his safety from retaliation. When the prosecution witnesses entered the room, Herminigildo was already lying on the floor bloodied and lifeless — no one saw the actual killing. In the absence of any witness, the manner and mode of attack could not be established with certitude. The killing was therefore classified as homicide, not murder. Nighttime was appreciated as an aggravating circumstance since treachery and evident premeditation were not established.

• Treachery — Killing of Magdalena: The evidence clearly showed that the accused repeatedly stabbed the unarmed victim who was all the time shielding and protecting her wounded child Shirley. The defenseless victim could not possibly put up any retaliatory or defensive measure against the onslaught. Treachery was therefore properly appreciated, and the killing was correctly classified as murder. Nighttime was absorbed by treachery and could not be separately appreciated. Evident premeditation was not established for lack of proof that the accused had clung to a determination to eliminate Magdalena Mendez. With no modifying circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Self-Defense — Unlawful Aggression — Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense; without it, the justifying circumstance cannot be appreciated. Unlawful aggression ceases when the danger to the accused's life and limb vanishes, as when the accused gains possession of the weapon from the alleged aggressor. The nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim are important indicia that disprove a plea of self-defense, especially where the accused emerges unscathed.

• Subjective Phase Doctrine (People vs. Eduave) — The subjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the crime between the act which begins consummation and the last act performed by the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. If the offender is stopped by a cause outside his voluntary resistance before completing the last act, the crime is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated. The doctrine was applied to affirm frustrated murder for the attack on Rosalinda, since the accused desisted only upon believing she was already dead.

• Intent to Kill in Frustrated Murder — Intent to kill is the principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide or murder and must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt. Where the evidence is inconclusive as to homicidal intent, the crime is not frustrated murder but only physical injuries. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn absent circumstances sufficient to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

• Treachery — Proof Required — Treachery cannot be deduced from mere presumptions. The prosecution must prove with convincing evidence that the accused deliberately adopted a mode of attack tending directly and especially to ensure execution of the crime without risk to himself. Where no witness saw the actual killing, the manner and mode of attack cannot be established with certitude, and treachery cannot be appreciated.

• "The subjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the consummation of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should result in the consummated crime." — This passage reproduces the canonical formulation of the subjective phase doctrine from People vs. Eduave, applied here to distinguish frustrated murder from attempted murder based on whether the offender voluntarily desisted or was stopped by an external cause.

• "The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide, or murder, is the intent on the part of the assailant to take the life of the person attacked. Such intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for downgrading the convictions as to Shirley and Emily from frustrated murder to physical injuries, emphasizing that intent to kill is indispensable and must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

• "Treachery as a qualifying circumstance may not be deduced from mere presumptions. The fact that accused-appellant employed ways and means in the execution of the crime tending directly and especially to ensure it must be proved with convincing evidence." — This passage articulates the standard for proving treachery, applied to downgrade the killing of Herminigildo from murder to homicide because no witness observed the actual attack.

• People vs. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209 (1917) — Followed. The Court applied the subjective phase doctrine to determine that the crime against Rosalinda was frustrated murder, the accused having performed all acts of execution and desisted only upon believing the victim was dead.

• People vs. Pablo Villanueva, 51 Phil. 488 (1928) — Followed. Cited for the principle that intent to kill must be proved in a clear and evident manner, supporting the downgrade of the charges against Shirley and Emily.

• People vs. De la Cruz, G.R. Nos. 109617-23, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 164 — Followed. Cited in support of the proposition that a plea of self-defense cannot be appreciated where it is uncorroborated and extremely doubtful.

• People vs. Cañete, G.R. No. 120495, March 12, 1998, 287 SCRA 490 — Followed. Cited for the principle that the nature and number of wounds are important indicia that disprove self-defense.

• People vs. Nagum, G.R. No. 134003, January 19, 2000 — Followed. Cited among cases supporting the rule that treachery cannot be presumed but must be proven by evidence.

• Article 11, Paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines self-defense as a justifying circumstance requiring unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found unlawful aggression absent because any aggression ceased when the accused gained possession of the bolo.

• Article 63, Paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Applied to impose reclusion perpetua for the murder of Magdalena, no modifying circumstances having been established.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Applied to the killing of Magdalena Mendez, qualified by treachery.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines homicide and prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal. Applied to the killing of Herminigildo Mendez, treachery not having been proven.

• Article 250, in relation to Article 50, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for frustrated homicide or murder, one degree lower than the consummated crime. Applied to the frustrated murder of Rosalinda, imposing reclusion temporal.

• Article 263, Paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code — Defines serious physical injuries where the injured person has lost any part of the body or the use thereof, prescribing prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Applied to the injuries sustained by Emily Mendez, who lost her left index finger by amputation.

• Article 265, Revised Penal Code — Defines less serious physical injuries as those incapacitating the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or requiring medical attendance for the same period, prescribing arresto mayor. Applied to the injuries sustained by Shirley Mendez.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied in imposing indeterminate penalties for homicide, frustrated murder, and serious physical injuries, with the minimum taken from the penalty next lower in degree and the maximum from the imposable penalty.

Davide, Jr., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concurred.