G.R. No. L-64951 June 29, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIO AGAG, REYNALDO AGAG and ABRAHAM AGAG, accused, REYNALDO AGAG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Emilio Agag, Reynaldo Agag, and Abraham Agag, were charged with murder for the killing of Charles Lallave on March 1, 1979, in Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The prosecution evidence established that the three accused arrived together at the victim’s location. Emilio Agag forcibly entered the house where Lallave was, immediately stabbed him with a bolo, inflicting a fatal chest wound. Reynaldo and Abraham then carried the victim outside, where Emilio continued stabbing him while the others held the victim. The post-mortem examination revealed 38 wounds, six of which were fatal. The trial court convicted all three and, considering the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and recidivism for Reynaldo, sentenced him to death. The cases of Emilio and Abraham were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The case is before the Supreme Court on automatic review due to the death penalty imposed on Reynaldo.
In his defense, appellant Reynaldo Agag claimed sole responsibility, alleging he acted in self-defense. He testified that the victim attempted to draw a bolo, prompting Reynaldo to throw stones, causing the victim to fall. He then took the victim’s bolo and stabbed him repeatedly before using his own. He argued the trial court erred in finding conspiracy, imposing the death penalty, and not appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Reynaldo Agag of murder and in imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court found conspiracy was established by the accused’s concerted actions: arriving together, simultaneously attacking the victim, and collectively ensuring his helplessness during the assault. The claim of self-defense by Reynaldo was rejected. The requisites of self-defense were absent, particularly unlawful aggression. The victim, allegedly drawing a bolo, was struck with a stone and fell before any attack could be launched, negating any imminent danger to Reynaldo’s life. Furthermore, the number and severity of the wounds inflicted on a prone and helpless victim were incompatible with a plea of self-defense. The alleged mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was not appreciated, as the arrest was effected via a warrant, negating spontaneity. However, the Court modified the penalty because the requisite votes for imposing the death penalty were not obtained. The indemnity was also increased to P30,000.00.