SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202186. January 25, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GRAYLAN COSTIN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 January 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202186 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelleev. GRAYLAN COSTIN, accused-appellant). — We resolve the appeal of accused-appellant Graylan Costin (Costin) assailing the July 28, 2011 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00658. The CA decision affirmed the November 30, 2006 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Abuyog, Leyte, in toto, finding Costin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
The Case
On August 3, 2003, the prosecution's eyewitnesses, while outside their barangay hall, saw Costin with a bolo running after Alfredo Alcasoda (Alcasoda). When Costin caught up with Alcasoda, he hacked the latter several times using his bolo. Alcasoda fell and died as a result.
Costin, in his defense, admitted that he hacked Alcasoda, but claimed that he did so because the latter kicked him off his bicycle and tried to stab him with a pisao.
In its November 30, 2006decision, the RTC found Costin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder punishable under Article 248 of the RPC. The trial court held, among others, that the element of treachery was present because Costin repeatedly hacked Alcasoda. It also rejected Costin's claim of self-defense as the court saw no unlawful aggression on the part of Alcasoda. It observed that Costin likewise failed to establish the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Accordingly, the RTC sentenced Costin to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the offended party the amount of P65,000.00 and to pay the costs of the suit. aTHCSE
In its July 28, 2011 decision, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC decision in toto. It upheld that there was no unlawful aggression because Alcasoda was running away from Costin. It likewise supported the finding that treachery was present since Costin was armed with a bolo against which Alcasoda was unable to defend himself. Lastly, it found no merit in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender because the penalty of reclusion perpetua, being an indivisible penalty, cannot be lowered by one degree.
On appeal before this Court, Costin argues that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He contends that the lower courts erred in considering that treachery attended the killing of Alcasoda, and in failing to appreciate the circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Our Ruling
We AFFIRM Costin's conviction.
Conviction necessarily follows when an accused admits killing the victim and fails to establish all the elements of self-defense with credible, clear, and convincing evidence. 3 With this type of defense, the accused bears the burden of proving: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. 4
The most important element in self-defense is unlawful aggression because there can be no self-defense unless the victim first committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. 5 Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not just a threatening or intimidating attitude. 6
As shown by the records of the case, the absence of unlawful aggression is clear from the prosecution witnesses' unequivocal and positive testimonies that Costin chased Alcasoda, and then hacked Alcasoda several times.
In the past, we have held that unlawful aggression no longer exists when the aggressor flees. 7 Moreover, the fact that there were multiple wounds inflicted on Alcasoda belies the claim of self-defense. 8
Furthermore, Costin failed to adduce corroborating evidence that Alcasoda initiated the attack. The pisao which the victim allegedly used was not offered as evidence to corroborate the accused's testimony that it was Alcasoda who unlawfully attacked him.
As for the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the courts a quo correctly ruled that treachery attended the killing of Alcasoda. The attacks were swift and sudden because Costin, who had a bolo, chased Alcasoda who did not have any chance to defend himself as he was felled by repeated hacking blows. Notably, Costin was armed with a bolo while the fleeing Alcasoda was unarmed.
We cannot accord any merit to Costin's argument that no treachery was involved simply because Alcasoda was already facing him and attempted to defend himself. Treachery still existed even if the deceased was face-to-face with his assailant at the time the blows were delivered, where it appeared that the attack was not preceded by a dispute and the offended party was unable to prepare to defend himself. 9
Finally, since the incident happened right in front of barangay officials, Costin could not claim that he had voluntarily surrendered as his apprehension was inevitable and his surrender was not spontaneous.
As regards the awarded indemnities, we direct the appellant to further pay the victim the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to conform to prevailing jurisprudence when the penalty imposed in a murder case is only reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the July 28, 2011 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00658 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
a. the appellant is further ordered to pay the victim the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
b. the monetary awards shall earn a six (6%) percent interest per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-10; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
2. CA rollo, pp. 36-40; penned by Presiding Judge Buenaventura A. Pajaron.
3. People v. Tagana, et al., G.R. No. 133027, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 620, 634.
4. People v. Lalongisip, G.R. No. 188331, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 169, 177.
5. People v. Catbagan, G.R. Nos. 149430-32, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 535, 540.
6. Toledo v. People, G.R. No. 158057, September 24, 2004, 439 SCRA 94, 109.
7. People v. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366 (1947).
8. People v. Batas, et al., G.R. Nos. 84277-78, August 2, 1989, 176 SCRA 46.
9. US v. Cornejo, 28 Phil. 457, 461 (2014).