G.R. No. 176061 ; July 4, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. BINGKY CAMPOS and DANNY “BOY” ACABO, Appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Bingky Campos and Danny “Boy” Acabo were charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Romeo F. Abad on August 19, 2001, in Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental. The Information alleged they conspired, armed with a “plamingco,” and attacked the 64-year-old victim with treachery and disregard of his age. Both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Lester Baldivino, testified that while the victim was at his store, Danny suddenly ran towards and stabbed Romeo in the abdomen, with Bingky standing nearby, after which both fled. The victim died the next day from his injuries. The defense, however, claimed self-defense. Danny testified that he and Bingky were on their way home when four men, including the victim, mauled Bingky. When Bingky ran, the men approached Danny; one kicked his buttocks and another held him. Danny, thinking one was pulling a weapon, drew his knife and thrust it at the person rushing at him, who turned out to be the victim. Bingky corroborated the mauling but did not know the assailants. The Regional Trial Court found them guilty of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellants for murder. This subsumes the following: (1) whether appellant Danny Acabo sufficiently proved his claim of self-defense; and (2) whether conspiracy between the appellants was established.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction with modifications to the damages.
1. On the Plea of Self-Defense: The Court ruled that Danny Acabo failed to prove the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. When an accused admits the killing and invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him. The essential elements are: (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation from the accused. The Court found the first element of unlawful aggression absent. Danny’s own testimony revealed that the alleged attack had ceased—Bingky had already run away, and the act of kicking his buttocks did not constitute a continuing aggression that posed a real, imminent, or immediate danger to his life, which would justify a lethal response. His claim that he thought the victim was pulling a weapon was unsupported and speculative. Therefore, his plea of self-defense must fail.
2. On Conspiracy: The Court found conspiracy to be present. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit it. It can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime, showing a common purpose. The evidence showed that Danny and Bingky arrived together at the scene. While Danny delivered the fatal stab, Bingky was present and positioned himself nearby, acting as a lookout. Their simultaneous flight after the stabbing indicated joint purpose and community of design. Bingky’s presence and actions were not mere coincidence but demonstrated concert of criminal design.
3. On the Crime and Penalty: The killing was qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the elderly victim no opportunity to defend himself. The disregard of age was absorbed by treachery. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
4. On Damages: The Court affirmed the award of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages. Additionally, exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00 were awarded due to the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. Actual damages were not awarded due to lack of competent proof, but temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 were granted in lieu thereof. All damages shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.