G.R. No. 97612 March 23, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO AMANIA and GAUDENCIO GUEVARRA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Eduardo Amania and Gaudencio Guevarra were charged with robbery with double homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City. The information alleged that on July 14, 1987, at Sitio Talustos, Barangay Amio, Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental, the appellants, conspiring and mutually helping one another, ambushed, assaulted, and killed Primo Omangay and Macario Omangay with bolos. Afterward, they took from Primo Omangay the amount of Seven Hundred Pesos (P700.00) and one-half sack of corn grits, and from Macario Omangay, another one-half sack of corn grits. Both appellants pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court found them guilty as charged and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordered restitution, and indemnified the heirs of the victims. Hence, this appeal.
The prosecution’s version, based mainly on testimonies of Arsenia Omangay and Isidra Omangay, was that while the victims and their family were walking single file on a trail, accused Eduardo Amania, sitting on a stone, suddenly stabbed Primo Omangay. Immediately after, co-accused Gaudencio Guevarra, standing on the other side, hacked and beheaded Macario Omangay. The appellants then took the money and corn grits and chased the fleeing family members.
Appellant Eduardo Amania claimed self-defense. He testified that he was on his way home after spear-fishing when Primo Omangay invited him to eat bananas after Macario cut a banana tree from Guevarra’s property. Guevarra, hearing the tree fall, admonished Macario, who then rushed towards Guevarra with a bolo. Guevarra fled, pursued by Macario. Primo ordered Amania to chase Guevarra and, when Amania refused, boxed him on the chest. Amania then stabbed Primo once and surrendered to the barangay captain.
Appellant Gaudencio Guevarra also claimed self-defense. He testified that he was bundling firewood when he heard a banana tree fall. He saw Macario Omangay cut down his banana tree and admonished him. Macario retorted, rushed towards him with a bolo, and chased him. When Guevarra reached a river, he slipped, and as Macario tried to hack him thrice, he evaded the blows and, fearing for his life, successively hacked Macario. He then left Macario, who was still breathing, and surrendered to the barangay captain.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not appellants acted in complete self-defense in killing Primo Omangay and Macario Omangay, thus absolving them from criminal liability.
2. In the negative, what crime was actually committed by the appellants.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court found that the appellants did not act in complete self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the requisites of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation must be present. The Court found that the appellants failed to prove unlawful aggression. The testimonies of the defense witnesses were inconsistent and improbable. For instance, Amania claimed Primo boxed him, but no evidence of a fist blow was found on his body. Guevarra’s claim that he was chased by Macario was belied by the location of Macario’s body far from the river where the alleged chase ended. The nature, number, and location of the victims’ wounds indicated a determined effort to kill, not an act of defense. The Court concluded the killings were not justified.
2. The crime committed was homicide, not robbery with homicide. The Court clarified that the special complex crime of robbery with homicide exists, and the term “homicide” therein is understood in its generic sense, encompassing multiple killings. However, in this case, the prosecution failed to prove the robbery component. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the taking of the P700.00 and corn grits were inconsistent and uncorroborated. The alleged stolen items were not presented in court, and there was no clear evidence they were taken on the occasion of the killing. The claim of robbery was based solely on the testimonies of the victims’ relatives, which were deemed insufficient to prove the element of taking with intent to gain. Therefore, the appellants were guilty of two separate crimes of homicide.
The Court modified the trial court’s decision. It found appellants guilty of homicide. Considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender (as both appellants surrendered to the barangay captain) and the absence of aggravating circumstances, the penalty for each homicide was imposed in the minimum period of reclusion temporal. Each appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. They were further ordered to indemnify the heirs of each victim in the amount of P50,000.00.