GR 160541; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160541 October 24, 2008
RONELO POLO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ronelo Polo was charged with the murder of Danilo Balisoro. Prosecution witnesses testified that on their way home, Polo called Balisoro, approached their group, had a short conversation, and then suddenly hacked Balisoro on the head, leading to Balisoro’s death. Polo admitted hacking Balisoro but claimed self-defense, alleging that Balisoro boxed him twice and attempted to stab him after an altercation involving Polo’s cousin. Defense witnesses corroborated Polo’s claim. The Regional Trial Court found Polo guilty of homicide, not murder, as the qualifying circumstances were not established. The trial court rejected Polo’s claim of self-defense, finding no unlawful aggression by Balisoro, and did not appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender because a warrant of arrest had been duly served. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. Polo elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
The main issues were whether the mitigating circumstances of (1) sufficient provocation and (2) voluntary surrender should be appreciated in Polo’s favor, and the propriety of the damages awarded.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages. The Court held that the factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive. It ruled that Polo failed to prove the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation, as any provocation was not adequate to excite him to commit the crime and a sufficient interval had elapsed for him to regain self-control. The Court also ruled that voluntary surrender was not present, as a warrant of arrest had been duly served, belied by Polo’s self-serving testimony. Regarding damages, the Court deleted the award of actual damages due to insufficient proof but awarded ₱25,000 as temperate damages. Additionally, the Court awarded ₱398,574 for loss of earning capacity, computed based on the victim’s age and unrebutted testimony regarding his income, which the lower courts had overlooked. The award of indemnity and moral damages was affirmed.