Pp vs. Mondigo

8/11/2019 Pp vs. Mondigo

1/3

G.R. No. 167954 January 31, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE,appellee,vs.PERLITO !ON"IGO y #$E!#LE%,appellant.

" E & I I O N

RPIO, J.'T() &a*)

This is an appeal from the Decision1dated 16 March 2005 of the Court of Appeals convictingappellant erlito Mondigo ! A"emale# $appellant% of Murder and &rustrated Murder.

T() Fa+*

The prosecution evidence sho'ed that in the morning of 2( )eptem"er 1**+, appellant, DamasoDelima $Damaso%, Damasos son Delfin Delima $Delfin% and three other unidentified individuals'ere having a drin-ing spree in igas, Malolos, /ulacan. At around noon, Damasos other son,Anthon! Delima $Anthon!%, oined the group. At around 600 p.m., appellant, using a ungle "olo,suddenl! hac-ed Anthon! on the head, causing him to fall to the ground unconscious. Appellant

ne3t attac-ed Damaso. A 'itness 'ho 'as in the vicinit!, olita umagi $umagi%, hearing shoutscoming from the scene of the crime, rushed to the area and there sa' appellant repeatedl!hac-ing Damaso 'ho 'as l!ing on his "ac-, arms raised to 'ard off appellants "lo's. Damasolater died from the inuries he sustained. Anthon! sustained a 15.254centimeter long lacerated'ound on his left temporal area.

Appellant 'as charged "efore the egional Trial Court of Malolos, /ulacan, /ranch (+ $trial court%'ith Murder $Criminal Case o. 20014M4**% and &rustrated Murder $Criminal Case o. 1**74M4**%8ualified "! treacher!, evident premeditation, and ta-ing advantage of superior strength.

Appellant invo-ed self4defense. According to him, a 8uarrel "ro-e out "et'een him and Anthon!during their drin-ing spree. Damaso and Delfin arrived and ganged4up on him. 9e ran home,follo'ed "! Anthon!, Damaso, and Delfin. :pon reaching his house, he got hold of a flat "ar and

'hac-ed Anthon!s head 'ith it. Damaso attac-ed him 'ith a "olo "ut Damaso lost hold of the'eapon 'hich fell to the ground. Appellant retrieved the "olo and used it to hac- Damaso.

T() Ru-n/ o () Tra- &our

;n its Decision dated 15 &e"ruar! 2002, the trial court found appellant guilt! of Murder for the -illingof Damaso and )erious h!sical ;nuries for the hac-ing of Anthon!, mitigated "! into3ication. 2Thetrial court gave credence to the testimonies of prosecution 'itnesses Anthon! and umagi, andcorrespondingl! found unconvincing appellants claim of self4defense. The trial court also held thattreacher! 8ualified Damasos -illing 'hich 'as done s'iftl!, giving him no opportunit! to ma-e adefensive stance and protect himself from the attac-, there"! insuring the commission ofappellants aggressive act.

etitioner appealed to this Court, contending that $1% the testimonies of the prosecution 'itnesseson the manner of the attac- on Anthon!, the presence of other individuals at the site of the incident,and the identit! of the individual 'ho shouted during the attac- are contradictor!< $2% umagisfailure to e3ecute a s'orn statement "efore ta-ing the 'itness stand renders her testimon!unrelia"le< $7% the nature of the 'ound Anthon! sustained, as indicated in the medical certificate,"elies his claim that he 'as hac-ed "! a "laded 'eapon< and $=% treacher! did not attend the-illing of Damaso as mere suddenness of an attac- does not suffice to sho' alevosia, not tomention that neither Anthon! nor umagi sa' ho' appellant initiated the attac- against Damaso.

;n its appellees "rief, the >ffice of the )olicitor ?eneral $>)?% recommended the modification ofthe trial courts udgment "! holding appellant lia"le onl! for 9omicide for the -illing of Damaso.

@e transferred the case to the Court of Appeals follo'ing the ruling in People v. Mateo.7

T() Ru-n/ o () &our o #)a-*

;n its Decision of 16 March 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts ruling 'ith the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt1


2/3

modification that appellant 'as lia"le for &rustrated Murder for the hac-ing of Anthon!.=The Courtof Appeals held that $1% the testimonies of the prosecution 'itnesses are credi"le despite theinconsistencies appellant noted as these had nothing to do 'ith the central 8uestion of 'hetherappellant attac-ed Anthon! and Damaso 'ith a "olo< $2% the lac- of motive for appellant to attac-the victims does not negate the commission of the crimes in 8uestion as motive "ecomes materialonl! 'hen the identit! of the assailant is in dou"t< and $7% Damasos -illing 'as attended "!treacher! as appellant launched his attac- 'ithout an! 'arning, leaving the victims no chance to

defend themselves.

9ence, this appeal. ;n separate manifestations, the parties informed the Court that the! 'ere nolonger filing supplemental "riefs and accordingl! agreed to su"mit the case for resolution "ased onthe points raised in their "riefs filed 'ith the Court of Appeals.

T() I**u)

The issue is 'hether appellant is guilt! of Murder and &rustrated Murder, as charged.

T() Ru-n/ o () &our

@e find appellant guilt! of 9omicide and &rustrated Murder.

Appellant Failed to Prove Self-defense

/! invo-ing self4defense, appellant admitted committing the felonies for 'hich he 'as chargedal"eit under circumstances 'hich, if proven, 'ould ustif! his commission of the crimes.5Thus, the"urden of proof is shifted to appellant 'ho must sho', "e!ond reasona"le dou"t, that the -illing ofDamaso and 'ounding of Anthon! 'ere attended "! the follo'ing circumstances $1% unla'fulaggression on the part of the victims< $2% reasona"le necessit! of the means emplo!ed to preventor repel it< and $7% lac- of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.6

As the Court of Appeals o"served, appellants version of ho' Damaso and Anthon! ganged4up onhim, 'holl! uncorro"orated, fails to convince. Appellant does not e3plain 'h! a flat "ar, 'hich heclaims to have used to 'hac- Anthon! on the head, convenientl! la! outside his house. &urther,the nature of the 'ound Anthon! sustained, a 15.254centimeter long laceration, could onl! have

"een caused "! a "laded 'eapon and not "! a "lunt4edged instrument such as a flat "ar. As forDamasos alleged unla'ful aggression, assuming this claim is true, such aggression ceased 'henDamaso lost hold of the "olo. Thus, there 'as no longer an! reason for appellant to pic-4up the"olo and attac- Damaso 'ith it.

;n contrast, the prosecution 'itnesses testimonies that appellant, 'ithout an! provocation,attac-ed t'o of his drin-ing companions 'ith a "olo ring true and are consistent in their materialpoints. After revie'ing their testimonies, 'e find no reason to distur" the lo'er courts findingsgiving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution 'itnesses.

Appellant is Guilty of Frustrated Murder and Homicide

Treachery Attended the Attack Aainst Anthony

As the Court of Appeals correctl! held, the location and nature of the 'ound inflicted againstAnthon! and the manner "! 'hich appellant carried out his attac- sho' intent to -ill and treacher!.Contrar! to appellants claim, treacher! attended the attac- as the evidence sho'ed that 'hile thegroup 'as in the midst of their drin-ing spree, appellant slipped out, 'ent to his house to get the"olo, and 'hile Anthon! 'as sitting among the group, appellant too- out his "olo and hac-edAnthon! on the left side of the head, causing a 15.254centimeter long laceration. Treacher! ispresent 'hen the offender commits the crime emplo!ing means, methods or forms in its e3ecution'hich tend directl! and speciall! to insure its e3ecution, 'ithout ris- to himself arising from thedefense that the offended part! might ma-e.(Anthon!, totall! unprepared for 'hat 'as to "efallhim, 'as completel! defenseless.

Appellant is Guilty of Homicide for the !illin of "amaso

@e find merit in the >)?s recommendation that appellant is onl! lia"le for 9omicide for the -illingof Damaso. one of the prosecution 'itnesses sa' ho' the attac- on Damaso commenced.Anthon! testified that after he regained consciousness, he sa' his father, 'ith multiple sta"
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_167954_2008.html#fnt7


3/3

'ounds, cra'ling to'ards their house.+&or her part, umagi testified that after hearing shoutscoming from the scene of the crime, she ran to'ards that direction and sa' appellant hac-ingDamaso 'ho 'as l!ing on his "ac-, arms raised to 'ard off appellants "lo's.*This evidence failsto meet the re8uirement that for treacher! to "e appreciated, the prosecution must sho' ho' thecriminal act commenced, developed and ended.10That treacher! ma! have attended the attac-against Anthon! does not follo' that the same also attended the assault against Damaso astreacher! must "e sho'n in the performance of the acts of e3ecution against each of the victims.

#nto$ication as Mitiatin %ircumstance not Proven

The trial court erred in crediting appellant 'ith the circumstance of into3ication as having mitigatedhis crimes "ecause the sta""ing incident ensued in the course of a drin-ing spree.11&or thealternative circumstance of into3ication12to "e treated as a mitigating circumstance, the defensemust sho' that the into3ication is not ha"itual, not su"se8uent to a plan to commit a felon! and theaccuseds drun-enness affected his mental faculties.179ere, the onl! proof on record on thismatter is appellants testimon! that "efore Damaso, Anthon!, and Delfin attac-ed him, he dran-a"out 7 to = "ottles of "eer.1=The lo' alcohol content of "eer, the 8uantit! of such li8uorappellant im"i"ed, and the a"sence of an! independent proof that appellants alcohol inta-eaffected his mental faculties all negate the finding that appellant 'as into3icated enough at the timehe committed the crimes to mitigate his lia"ilit!.

The Penalty Applica&le for Homicide

9omicide under Article 2=* of the evised enal Code is punisha"le "! reclusion temporal.Appl!ing the ;ndeterminate )entence a', the range of the penalt! imposa"le on appellant is 6!ears and 1 da! to 12 !ears ofprision mayor, as minimum, to 12 !ears and 1 da! to 20 !earsof reclusion temporal, as ma3imum. ;n the a"sence of an! mitigating or aggravating circumstance,'e find it proper to impose upon appellant a prison term of + !ears and 1 da! of prision mayor, asminimum, to 1= !ears and + months of reclusion temporal, as ma3imum. Appellant is also lia"le topa! the heirs of Damaso civil indemnit! of 50,000 and moral damages of 50,000 'hich area'arded automaticall!.15

HEREFORE, 'e #FFIR! the Decision dated 16 March 2005 of the Court of Appeals, 'ith

the !O"IFITIONthat appellant erlito Mondigo ! A"emale# is found GILTof 9omicide forthe -illing of Damaso Delima. Appellant erlito Mondigo ! A"emale# is sentenced as follo's

1. ;n Crim. Case o. 1**74M4**, eight $+% !ears and one $1% da! of prision mayor, asminimum, to fourteen $1=% !ears and eight $+% months of reclusion temporal, as ma3imum

Documents

Pp vs. Mondigo