G.R. No. 109145 September 22, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE CAPOQUIAN y DUREN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jose Capoquian, was charged with murder for hacking Bienvenido Sales to death on May 22, 1991, in San Jose, Batangas. The prosecution evidence, primarily from eyewitness Cesar Remo, established that the appellant and the victim were engaged in a drinking session. Remo testified that upon returning from an errand, he saw the appellant hack the victim on the nape with a bolo while the latter was urinating with his back turned. The victim died instantly from decapitation. The appellant fled but was later apprehended at a bus station with his family, and the bolo was recovered from him.
The defense did not deny the killing but claimed justification, asserting the appellant acted in defense of his relative. The appellant testified that the victim, already drunk, had assaulted his 10-year-old son, Fernando, by lifting and dropping him, and later chased the boy who climbed a tree. The appellant claimed he hacked the victim only when the latter was attempting to harm Fernando further. Fernando corroborated this account, stating he was on the tree when his father struck the victim.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of murder, rejecting his plea of defense of a relative.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the requisites for justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically defense of a relative. For such a defense to be valid, the unlawful aggression must be real or imminent, the means employed must be reasonably necessary, and there must be lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found the defense version inherently incredible. The trial court noted discrepancies between the testimonies of the appellant and his son regarding the injuries sustained, and logically doubted that a heavily intoxicated victim could effectively chase a child and climb a tree. The appellant’s conduct immediately after the incident—fleeing with his family and the weapon instead of surrendering or seeking help for his allegedly injured son—was inconsistent with the behavior of an innocent person acting in defense and was deemed indicative of guilt. Furthermore, the manner of attack constituted treachery. The victim was unarmed, urinating with his back turned, and had no opportunity to defend himself against the sudden bolo hack, which was deliberately adopted to ensure the killing without risk to the appellant. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated, warranting a conviction for murder.