G.R. No. 97227 October 20, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CECILIO BINONDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of February 23, 1986, accused-appellant Cecilio Binondo killed Pat. Domiciano Dinopol. Prosecution witnesses Maximo Dinopol and his wife Pablita, neighbors of the accused, saw him with seven others carrying the naked, decapitated body of the victim into his yard and heard him say he would take sole responsibility. That same evening, Binondo brought the victim’s severed head to the police station. The body was later retrieved from his house. The autopsy revealed the victim suffered multiple incised and lacerated wounds, including a nearly severed neck. Binondo pleaded self-defense, claiming that earlier that evening, the victim, armed with a gun and a bolo, had angrily confronted and threatened him. He stated that after he went home, his wife warned him the victim was coming to kill them. He turned off the lights, armed himself, and waited. When the victim forced open the kitchen door, Binondo shot him in the head with an air rifle and then struck him with a bolo five or six times. After the victim fell, Binondo, believing the victim had an amulet that could revive him if doused with water, completely decapitated him. The Regional Trial Court convicted Binondo of murder, rejecting his plea of self-defense.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the accused-appellant’s plea of self-defense and finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused-appellant.

RULING

1. The trial court did not err in rejecting the plea of self-defense. When an accused admits killing but invokes self-defense, the burden of proving its elements by clear and convincing evidence rests on him. Binondo failed to discharge this burden. There was an absence of unlawful aggression; the victim’s alleged threats and pounding on the door, especially when the house was in total darkness, did not constitute an immediate and imminent attack. The physical evidence negated self-defense: Binondo suffered no injury, while the victim sustained numerous severe wounds on vital parts. The means employed were unreasonable and unnecessary, as Binondo continued to inflict injuries and decapitated the victim after he had already fallen defenseless. Decapitation of a corpse constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse, a qualifying circumstance for murder.
2. The trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as Binondo presented himself to the police with the victim’s head. However, this was offset by the aggravating circumstance of treachery. The killing was qualified to murder by treachery, as Binondo, forewarned of the victim’s approach, extinguished the lights and positioned himself to insure the execution of the offense without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. The crime was also qualified by cruelty, as the decapitation deliberately outraged the victim’s corpse. Treachery was thus considered a mere aggravating circumstance offset by voluntary surrender. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the civil indemnity to P50,000.00.