People vs. Zapata

An accused who admits to the killing but invokes self-defense bears the burden of proving the concurrence of all elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Failure to establish unlawful aggression, which requires a physical or material attack that is actual or imminent and unlawful, is fatal to the claim of self-defense.

The accused-appellant was charged under two Informations with Murder for the deaths of Randy M. Nuevo and Almar A. Ranien, allegedly committed on August 14, 2008 in Quezon City. The charges alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. The accused-appellant entered pleas of not guilty to both charges, and the cases were consolidated for trial before Branch 222 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

On August 14, 2008 at around 9:30 p.m., Randy M. Nuevo and Almar A. Ranien went to the house of Teody Tambua for a drinking spree. Nuevo bought two bottles of Red Horse beer. While they were drinking, accused-appellant Joebert Taroma Zapata passed by and glanced at them. Tambua saw accused-appellant and invited him to join them. During the drinking session, Ranien and accused-appellant had a conversation about their respective identification cards. Ranien made a joke about accused-appellant's ID, pointing out that it indicated Crime Monitoring Section and claiming that he had been to Camp Aguinaldo but it was his first time to see such an ID. Accused-appellant got mad and went home, which was near Tambua's house.

Accused-appellant returned after a few minutes, carrying a bolo with his left hand but hidden behind his back. He rushed towards Ranien, transferred the bolo from his left hand to his right hand, and hacked Ranien several times. After hacking Ranien, accused-appellant went on to hack Nuevo. Tambua got scared and ran towards the house of their barangay chairperson to ask for help, but no one responded. Tambua saw accused-appellant approaching, and fearing that accused-appellant would also harm him, he ran towards the house of Vany Nuevo, Nuevo's brother. Tambua told Vany what transpired, and both rushed to Tambua's house, where they saw the lifeless bodies of Ranien and Nuevo. They brought the bodies to the hospital, but Ranien and Nuevo were already dead. The autopsy report showed that Nuevo's cause of death was a hacked wound on his head and a stab wound on his trunk, while Ranien's death was due to a hacked wound on his head.

For the defense, accused-appellant testified that he and Tambua are neighbors but were not in good terms since December 2007 when Tambua accused him of treating his wife as a mistress. On August 14, 2008 at around 10:00 p.m., he went out of his house to buy cigarettes from a store. On his way back, Tambua blocked his way and invited him to his house. When they entered Tambua's house, he saw Nuevo and Ranien having a drinking spree. One of them offered him a drink, but he declined as he was not feeling well and wanted to go home. The person who offered him a drink got mad and punched him at the side of his body. Accused-appellant retaliated by punching his assailant on the chin. Accused-appellant then saw that the other man was holding a bolo and was about to hack him. Accused-appellant grabbed the bolo and was able to get hold of it. He saw Tambua hand a knife to one of the men. When the man with the knife was about to attack him, he hacked that person with the bolo. He saw that the other man was about to attack him also; thus, he hacked him. Accused-appellant admitted that he could not remember the details of the incident, saying "nagdilim na po yung paningin ko nun."

The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, finding that evident premeditation was not duly proved but that treachery was established. The RTC rejected the insinuation of ill motive on the part of Tambua and found incredulous accused-appellant's allegation that he accepted Tambua's invitation despite their bad terms. The RTC ruled that accused-appellant failed to prove self-defense. The CA affirmed, ruling that accused-appellant failed to prove the elements of self-defense and that treachery attended the commission of the crimes.

• Self-Defense: Accused-appellant invoked self-defense, testifying that he was invited to Tambua's house, was punched by one of the victims, saw another victim holding a bolo, wrested the bolo from his attacker, and hacked the victims when they were about to attack him.
• Ill Motive of Witness: Accused-appellant insinuated ill motive on the part of Tambua, alleging that they were not in good terms since December 2007 when Tambua accused him of treating his wife as a mistress.
• Lack of Recollection: Accused-appellant admitted that he could not remember the details of the incident, stating "nagdilim na po yung paningin ko nun."

• Credibility of Witness: The prosecution presented the testimony of Tambua, who categorically testified that accused-appellant went home after his argument with Ranien and returned a few minutes later holding a bolo, which he hid behind his back, and then hacked Nuevo and Ranien.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution maintained that once accused-appellant admitted to the killing and invoked self-defense, the burden of proof shifted to the defense to prove the elements of self-defense.

• Self-Defense: Whether accused-appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, specifically whether he validly invoked self-defense to exculpate himself from criminal liability.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the commission of the crimes, qualifying them to Murder.

• Self-Defense: No. Accused-appellant failed to prove the elements of self-defense, particularly unlawful aggression on the part of the victims and reasonable necessity of the means used to repel the aggression. The prosecution's evidence, through the straightforward testimony of Tambua, established that accused-appellant attacked first.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery attended the attack, as accused-appellant hid the bolo behind his back and attacked Nuevo and Ranien who were caught unaware and unable to defend themselves, qualifying the crimes to Murder.

• Self-Defense: The Court applied the settled rule that once the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defense, and the accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. To successfully invoke self-defense, the accused must prove the concurrence of: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, the test is "whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be imagined or imaginary threat." The elements of unlawful aggression are: (1) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (2) the attack or assault must be actual, or at least, imminent; and (3) the attack or assault must be unlawful. The Court agreed with the CA and RTC that accused-appellant did not act in self-defense, giving more credence to the straightforward testimony of Tambua over the self-serving allegations of accused-appellant. The Court noted that accused-appellant's version was contrary to Tambua's positive statements that accused-appellant went home after his argument with Ranien and returned a few minutes later holding a bolo, which he hid behind his back. Even assuming that accused-appellant was attacked first, his own testimony that he was able to wrest the bolo from his attacker showed his disproportionate response to the aggression, meaning there was no reasonable necessity of the means he used to prevent or repel the aggression. The fact that accused-appellant ran after Tambua, who fled the scene for fear that he might also be hacked, proved that accused-appellant was the aggressor.

• Treachery: The Court applied Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines treachery as committed when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. To prove treachery, it is important to establish that: (1) the victim was in no position to defend himself or herself when attacked; and (2) the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the methods, means, or form of one's attack against the victim. In this case, accused-appellant hid the bolo behind his back and attacked Nuevo and Ranien who were caught unaware and unable to defend themselves or to retaliate. The acts of accused-appellant clearly indicated that the attack was sudden, unexpected, and consciously adopted. The lower courts did not err in ruling that treachery attended the commission of the crimes and qualified them to Murder.

• Self-Defense — Once the accused admits to the killing and invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defense. The accused must prove the concurrence of: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that accused-appellant failed to establish unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity, as his own testimony showed he was able to wrest the bolo from his attacker, indicating a disproportionate response.

• Unlawful Aggression — For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, the test is "whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be imagined or imaginary threat." The elements are: (1) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (2) the attack or assault must be actual, or at least, imminent; and (3) the attack or assault must be unlawful. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that accused-appellant failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victims.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. To prove treachery, it must be established that: (1) the victim was in no position to defend himself or herself when attacked; and (2) the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the methods, means, or form of one's attack against the victim. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that accused-appellant's act of hiding the bolo behind his back and attacking the victims who were caught unaware constituted treachery.

• Credibility of Witnesses — The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses carry great weight and respect because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses when they are placed on the stand to testify. Appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. The Court applied this doctrine in giving more credence to Tambua's testimony over accused-appellant's self-serving allegations.

• Damages in Murder Cases — In line with People vs. Jugueta, when the circumstances attending the commission of the crime call for the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua and there is no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the amount of damages awarded to the heirs of the victim should be: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of aggravating circumstances present. The temperate damages awarded to the heirs of the victim in cases where the actual damages proven during the trial is less than the amount allowed by the court as temperate damages has been fixed to P50,000.00.

• "It is a settled rule that in criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, once the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defense and as such, the accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence." — This passage states the controlling rule on burden of proof in criminal cases where self-defense is invoked, which is central to the Court's analysis.

• "For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, the test is 'whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be imagined or imaginary threat.'" — This passage defines the test for unlawful aggression, a key element of self-defense, and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." — This passage quotes the statutory definition of treachery under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, which is the basis for qualifying the crimes to Murder.

• "In this case, accused-appellant hid the bolo behind his back and attacked Nuevo and Ranien who were caught unaware and unable to defend themselves or to retaliate. The acts of accused-appellant clearly indicate that the attack was sudden, unexpected, and consciously adopted." — This passage applies the elements of treachery to the facts of the case, demonstrating the Court's reasoning in sustaining the finding of treachery.

• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Controlling precedent on the proper amounts of damages to be awarded in cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua and there is no ordinary aggravating circumstance. The Court relied on this case to modify the damages awarded by the lower courts.

• People vs. Gajila, G.R. No. 227502, July 23, 2018, 873 SCRA 337 — Cited for the rule on burden of proof in criminal cases and the shifting of burden when self-defense is invoked.

• People vs. Panerio, 823 Phil. 738 (2018) — Cited for the elements of self-defense.

• People vs. Abina, et al., 830 Phil. 352 (2018) — Cited for the elements of treachery.

• People vs. Racal, 817 Phil. 665 (2017) — Cited for the amounts of damages and temperate damages in murder cases.

• People vs. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055 (2017) — Cited for the rule on credibility of witnesses and the weight given to trial court findings.

• Article 14, paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code — Defines treachery (alevosia) as an aggravating circumstance. The Court applied this provision in finding that treachery attended the commission of the crimes, qualifying them to Murder.

Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Zalameda, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred.