GR 183457; (September, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183457 ; September 17, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROEL ARBALATE AND RAMIL ARBALATE (AL2), RUPERTO ARBALATE (DET.), Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Ruperto Arbalate and his sons, Roel and Ramil, were charged with Murder for the killing of Gualberto Selemen on July 7, 2002, in Pinabacdao, Samar. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, and abuse of superior strength. Only Ruperto was tried as his sons remained at large. The prosecution, through witnesses Jovita Quijano (the victim’s wife) and Benedicto Dacca, established that after a drinking session and an initial altercation between Ruperto and Selemen, Ruperto returned with his armed sons. Roel first hacked Selemen, after which all three chased the victim into a rice field, where they took turns stabbing and hacking him until he died, after which Ramil beheaded him. Ruperto later presented the severed head to Quijano.
Ruperto invoked self-defense, claiming Selemen had attacked him first with a bladed weapon during a quarrel, forcing him to grab a bolo and hack Selemen in the rice field. The Regional Trial Court convicted Ruperto of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Ruperto Arbalate’s conviction for Murder, specifically in rejecting his claim of self-defense and in finding the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the credibility of the prosecution witnesses remained intact. On the claim of self-defense, the Court ruled it must be rejected as Ruperto failed to prove the essential element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The positive and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses categorically showed that the initial altercation had ended, and it was Ruperto who later returned with his sons to launch a deliberate attack on the unarmed and fleeing victim. Unlawful aggression, a prerequisite for self-defense, was absent.
Regarding the qualifying circumstance, the Court affirmed the presence of abuse of superior strength. The attack involved three armed assailants—Ruperto and his two sons—against a single, unarmed victim. This numerical and weaponry superiority was deliberately taken advantage of to ensure the attack without risk to themselves, which was evident from the chase and the sustained hacking that led to the victim’s decapitation. This circumstance qualified the killing as Murder. The Court modified the awarded damages to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, increasing civil indemnity and moral damages to PhP75,000 each and affirming exemplary damages of PhP30,000.