G.R. No. 190340; July 24, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROGELIO RAMOS and MARISSA INTERO RAMOS, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

The prosecution’s version established that on April 11, 2006, Rogelio Ramos threw stones at a nearby house where the victim, Ronald Abacco, was present. After a verbal altercation, an unarmed Abacco approached the appellants’ house to talk. Upon opening their gate, Rogelio immediately hacked Abacco with a samurai sword. When Abacco fell, the appellants dragged him inside their yard. Despite Abacco’s pleas for mercy, Marissa encouraged Rogelio to kill him, and Rogelio delivered multiple hacks until Abacco died. The autopsy revealed twelve wounds, including deep hacked wounds exposing bone and nearly severing the spinal cord.
The defense presented a contrary account. Rogelio invoked self-defense, claiming Abacco was the initial aggressor who threw stones at their house, shouted challenges, and then suddenly hacked him as he exited his gate. Rogelio alleged he retreated, got his sword, and hacked Abacco only to defend himself during the attack. Marissa interposed alibi and denial, testifying she was seeking barangay officials during the incident and only learned of the killing upon her return.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of appellants Rogelio and Marissa Ramos for the crime of Murder.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, giving greater weight to the consistent and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses over the defenses of self-defense, denial, and alibi. For self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused. Rogelio failed to prove the essential elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The nature, number, and location of Abacco’s wounds—twelve hack wounds from a samurai sword, including defensive wounds on the arms and attacks while he was down and pleading—were grossly disproportionate to any purported defense and indicated a determined intent to kill, negating self-defense. The plea for mercy, “Tama na bayaw,” further belied the claim that unlawful aggression was ongoing.
The Court also found conspiracy. Marissa’s acts of shouting encouragement to kill (“Sige, patayin mo na yan!”) and her participation in dragging the victim demonstrated a community of criminal purpose with Rogelio, making her equally liable. Her alibi was weak for failure to prove it was physically impossible for her to be at the crime scene. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated because the sudden and unexpected hacking of the unarmed victim upon the opening of the gate ensured the execution of the attack without risk to the appellants. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded damages were sustained.