G.R. No. 112972 April 24, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO SAMBULAN, LUCAS SAMBULAN and ALFREDO SAMBULAN, accused. ROMEO SAMBULAN and LUCAS SAMBULAN, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Romeo and Lucas Sambulan, along with their brother Alberto Sambulan, were charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Tangub City for the killing of Antonio Roda on August 28, 1992. The information alleged they conspired, armed with bolos, and attacked the victim, inflicting multiple fatal wounds, with the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. Upon arraignment, all pleaded not guilty. The case against Alberto was later dismissed for lack of evidence. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that on the afternoon of August 28, 1992, the appellants’ father, Pedro Sambulan, and the victim had a fistfight after Pedro called the victim a “crocodile.” That evening, prosecution witness Felix Ano-os saw appellants Romeo and Lucas hacking the victim with a bolo in a cornfield. The victim’s body was found with 13 mortal wounds. Appellant Romeo Sambulan admitted killing the victim but invoked self-defense, claiming the victim drew a bolo on him after he questioned the victim about boxing his father. He testified he kicked the victim, grabbed the bolo, and stabbed and hacked him. He then sought his brother Lucas’s help to surrender. Lucas denied participation, claiming he was at home. The trial court convicted both appellants of Murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. During the appeal, Lucas Sambulan died. Romeo Sambulan initially abandoned his appeal but later moved for its reinstatement.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding appellant Romeo Sambulan’s plea of self-defense.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding the killing qualified by evident premeditation and treachery and in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and vindication of a grave offense.
3. Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
RULING
1. The plea of self-defense was correctly rejected. When an accused admits killing but invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish it by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Even assuming the victim drew a bolo, appellant’s act of stabbing and repeatedly hacking the victim after he had been immobilized by a kick to the groin was not a reasonable means to resist an attack. The nature, number, and location of the victim’s 13 wounds were inconsistent with self-defense and indicated a determined effort to kill.
2. The trial court erred in appreciating evident premeditation and treachery. There was no evidence of planning or preparation for the killing. The confrontation appeared to have arisen from a chance meeting. Treachery was not established, as the prosecution failed to prove how the attack commenced. However, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated in favor of Romeo Sambulan, as he surrendered to the police and turned over the bolo. The mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense was not appreciated because the offense committed against his father (physical injuries) was not of such gravity as to justify the killing.
3. The trial court erred in finding Lucas Sambulan guilty. His criminal and civil liability were extinguished by his death pending appeal. As for Romeo Sambulan, he is guilty not of Murder but of Homicide. The qualifying circumstances were not proven. The killing was attended by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, with no aggravating circumstances to offset it. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty is reduced. The court modified the judgment: the case against Lucas Sambulan is dismissed due to his death. Romeo Sambulan is found guilty of Homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).