VELASQUEZ v. PEOPLE

NICOLAS VELASQUEZ v. PEOPLE 

GR No. 195021

March 15, 2017

Facts:

Petitioners Nicolas Velasquez (Nicolas) and Victor Velasquez (Victor), along with four (4) others - Felix Caballeda (Felix), Jojo Del Mundo (Jojo), Sonny Boy Velasquez (Sonny), and Ampong Ocumen (Ampong) - were charged with attempted murder under Article 248, in relation to Article 6, of the Revised Penal Code. Contrary to Article 248 in relation to Article 6 and 50 of the Revised Penal Code. All accused, except Ampong, who remained at large, pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Trial then ensued.

According to the prosecution, on May 24, 2003, at about 10:00 p.m., the spouses Jesus and Ana Del Mundo (Del Mundo Spouses) left their home to sleep in their nipa hut, which was about 100 meters away. Arriving at the nipa hut, the Del Mundo Spouses saw Ampong and Nora Castillo (Nora) in the midst of having sex. Aghast at what he perceived to be a defilement of his property, Jesus Del Mundo (Jesus) shouted invectives at Ampong and Nora, who both scampered away. Jesus decided to pursue Ampong and Nora, while Ana Del Mundo (Ana) left to fetch their son, who was then elsewhere. Jesus went to the house of Ampong's aunt, but neither Ampong nor Nora was there. He began making his way back home when he was blocked by Ampong and his fellow accused.

Without provocation, petitioner Nicolas hit the left side of Jesus' forehead with a stone. Petitioner Victor also hit Jesus' left eyebrow with a stone. Accused Felix did the same, hitting Jesus above his left ear. Accused Sonny struck Jesus with a bamboo, hitting him at the back, below his right shoulder. Ampong punched Jesus on his left cheek. The accused then left Jesus on the ground, bloodied. Jesus crawled and hid behind blades of grass, fearing that the accused might return. He then got up and staggered his way back to their house.

At the Del Mundo Spouses' residence, Maria Teresita recounted to them what she had witnessed (Jesus had managed to return home by then). Ana and Maria Teresita then brought Jesus to Barangay Captain Pilita Villanueva, who assisted them in bringing Jesus to the hospital.

After undergoing an x-ray examination, Jesus was found to have sustained a crack in his skull. Dr. Jose D. De Guzman issued a medico-legal certificate indicating injuries obtained by the victim. Dr. De Guzman noted that Jesus' injuries required medical attention for four (4) to six (6) weeks. Jesus was also advised to undergo surgery. He was, however, unable to avail of the required medical procedure due to shortage of funds.

On the other hand, the defense offered a different version of events. According to the accused, in the evening of May 24, 2003, petitioner Nicolas was roused in his sleep by his wife, Mercedes Velasquez (Mercedes), as the nearby house of petitioner Victor was being stoned.

Nicolas made his way to Victor's place, where he saw Jesus hacking Victor's door. Several neighbors - the other accused - allegedly tried to pacify Jesus. Jesus, who was supposedly inebriated, vented his ire upon Nicolas and the other accused, as well as on Mercedes. The accused thus responded and countered Jesus' attacks, leading to his injuries.

In its July 25, 2007 Decision, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City found petitioners and Felix Caballeda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder. The court also found Sonny Boy Velasquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of less serious physical injuries. He was found to have hit Jesus on the back with a bamboo rod. Jojo Del Mundo was acquitted. The case was archived with respect to Ampong, as he remained at large. Petitioners and Felix Caballeda filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Regional Trial Court denied. On petitioners' and Caballeda's appeal, the Court of Appeals found that petitioners and Caballeda were only liable for serious physical injuries thus modified the sentence imposed on petitioners and Caballeda.

Following the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners filed the petition claiming that they acted in defense of themselves, and also in defense of Mercedes, Nicolas' wife and Victor's mother. Thus, they invoke the first and second justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.

Issue:

Whether or not Petitioners acted in defense of themselves and in defense of their relatives.

Held:

No. Petitioners failed to prove that they acted in defense of themselves and in defense of their relatives. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

A person invoking self-defense (or defense of a relative) admits to having inflicted harm upon another person - a potential criminal act under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) of the Revised Penal Code. However, he or she makes the additional, defensive contention that even as he or she may have inflicted harm, he or she nevertheless incurred no criminal liability as the looming danger upon his or her own person (or that of his or her relative) justified the infliction of protective harm to an erstwhile aggressor.

The accused's admission enables the prosecution to dispense with discharging its burden of proving that the accused performed acts, which would otherwise be the basis of criminal liability. All that remains to be established is whether the accused were justified in acting as he or she did. To this end, the accused's case must rise on its own merits: It is settled that when an accused admits [harming] the victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he [harmed] the victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.

To successfully invoke self-defense, an accused must establish: "(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense." Defense of a relative under Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code requires the same first two (2) requisites as self-defense and, in lieu of the third "in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein." In case at the bar, petitioners' entire defense rests on proof that it was Jesus who initiated an assault by barging into the premises of petitioners' residences, hacking Victor's door, and threatening physical harm upon petitioners and their companions. That is, that unlawful aggression originated from Jesus.

Contrary to what a successful averment of self-defense or defense of a relative requires, petitioners offered nothing more than a self-serving, uncorroborated claim that Jesus appeared out of nowhere to go berserk in the vicinity of their homes. They failed to present independent and credible proof to back up their assertions. The Regional Trial Court noted that it was highly dubious that Jesus would go all the way to petitioners' residences to initiate an attack for no apparent reason.

The remainder of petitioners' recollection of events strains credulity. They claim that Jesus launched an assault despite the presence of at least seven (7) antagonists: petitioners, Mercedes, and the four (4) other accused. They further assert that Jesus persisted on his assault despite being outnumbered, and also despite their and their co-accused's bodily efforts to restrain Jesus. His persistence was supposedly so likely to harm them that, to neutralize him, they had no other recourse but to hit him on the head with stones for at least three (3) times, and to hit him on the back with a bamboo rod, aside from dealing him with less severe blows.

As the Regional Trial Court noted, however:

The Court takes judicial notice of (the) big difference in the physical built of the private complainant and accused Victor Velasquez, Sonny Boy Velasquez, Felix Caballeda and Jojo del Mundo, private complainant is shorter in height and of smaller built than all the accused. The said accused could have had easily held the private complainant, who was heavily drunk as they claim, and disarmed him without the need of hitting him. Even if it were to be granted that Jesus was the initial aggressor, the beating dealt to him by petitioners and their co-accused was still glaringly in excess of what would have sufficed to neutralize him. It was far from a reasonably necessary means to repel his supposed aggression. Petitioners thereby fail in satisfying the second requisite of self-defense and of defense of a relative. Upon their mere invocation of self-defense and defense of a relative, they relieved the prosecution of its burden of proving the acts constitutive of the offense. They took upon themselves the burden of establishing their innocence, and cast their lot on their capacity to prove their own affirmative allegations. Unfortunately for them, they failed. Therefore, the Petition was denied.