GR 115216; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115216 July 5, 1996
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAVID CABILES, SR., DAVID CABILES, JR., WILLIAM CABILES and NOLITO CABILES alias “Lito”, accused.
FACTS
Accused-appellant David Cabiles, Sr., along with his three sons, was charged with murder for the killing of Constancio de Mesa, Jr. Only David Cabiles, Sr. was apprehended and tried, as his co-accused remained at-large. The prosecution evidence, through witnesses Fredesminda Ocfemia and Liberato Regnim, established that on July 19, 1991, an argument ensued between the victim and accused-appellant at the latter’s house. As the victim was being led away, accused-appellant emerged armed with a bolo and challenged him. David Cabiles, Jr. threw stones at the victim. Subsequently, William Cabiles suddenly stabbed the victim in the back with a spear. The wounded victim fled but was chased by all four accused. They surrounded and collectively attacked him with bolos, a spear, and stones until he died.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted David Cabiles, Sr. of murder, notwithstanding his claim of self-defense and denial of due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of self-defense was untenable as accused-appellant failed to prove the essential element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The prosecution witnesses credibly testified that the victim was being pacified and was retreating when the initial attack was launched by William Cabiles. The killing was qualified by treachery, as the initial spear thrust to the victim’s back was sudden and unexpected, ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. Although accused-appellant did not inflict this first blow, he is equally liable due to conspiracy. Conspiracy was evident from the accused’s concerted actions: they jointly pursued the fleeing victim, surrounded him, and collectively attacked until he was dead. The act of one conspirator is the act of all. Finally, the court correctly denied the motion to present Dr. Sy, as the proposed testimony on the wounds of the son, William, was irrelevant to accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense for his own person. No denial of due process occurred, as accused-appellant was given full opportunity to present his case.