People vs. Tabarnero G.R. No. 168169, February
24, 2010
Self-defense and Voluntary Surrender as Mitigating Circumstances
Facts:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00027 dated April 29, 2005. In said Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the August 29, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78 of Malolos, Bulacan, in Crim. Case No. 888-M-2000, convicting herein appellants Alberto Tabarnero (Alberto) and Gary Tabarnero (Gary) of the crime of Murder.
Apellants contended that the court a quo gravely erred in not considering the justifying circumstance of self-defense and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender interposed by accused-appellant Gary Tabarnero.
Issue:
Are the contentions meritorious?
Ruling:
No. The justifying circumstance of self-defense on the part of Gary cannot be considered
The requisites for self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused; and 3) employment of reasonable means to prevent and repel aggression.
The defense invokes the said justifying circumstance, claiming that all of the above three elements are present in the case at bar. There was allegedly unlawful aggression on the part of Ernesto when the latter delivered the first blow with the lead pipe. According to the defense, the means Gary used to defend himself was reasonable, and the shouting shouted professions of his feelings for about Mary Jane could not be considered provocation sufficient for Ernesto to make the unlawful aggression.
Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requirement of self-defense of self-defense. As ruled by the Court of Appeals, the evidence presented by Gary to prove the alleged unlawful aggression, namely, his own testimony, is insufficient and self-serving. The alleged sudden appearance of Ernesto and his first attack with the lead pipe the very moment Gary decided to leave seems to this Court to be all too convenient, considering that there was no one around to witness the start of the fight.
It also bears to emphasize that by invoking self-defense, Gary, in effect, admitted killing Ernesto, thus, shifting upon him the burden of evidence to prove the elements of the said justifying circumstance. A plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also extremely doubtful in itself.
The defense further argues that assuming that Gary is not qualified to avail of the justifying circumstance of self-defense, he would nevertheless be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense under Article 13(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Gary is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
The first assignment of error presents another issue for the consideration of this Court. The defense argues that Gary’s yielding to Alarma should be credited as a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Solicitor General agreed with the defense on this point. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed, and held that the delay of six months before surrendering negates spontaneity, a requisite for voluntary surrender to be considered mitigating.
We agree with the Court of Appeals.
In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be credited to the accused, the following requisites should be present: (a) the offender has not actually been arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender must be voluntary. A surrender, to be voluntary, must be spontaneous, i.e., there must be an intent to submit oneself to authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses in capturing him.
In the case at bar, appellant surrendered to the authorities after more than one year had lapsed since the incident and in order to disclaim responsibility for the killing of the victim. This neither shows repentance or acknowledgment of the crime nor intention to save the government the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Besides, at the time of his surrender, there was a pending warrant of arrest against him. Hence, he should not be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Self-defense and Voluntary Surrender as Mitigating Circumstances
Facts:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00027 dated April 29, 2005. In said Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the August 29, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78 of Malolos, Bulacan, in Crim. Case No. 888-M-2000, convicting herein appellants Alberto Tabarnero (Alberto) and Gary Tabarnero (Gary) of the crime of Murder.
Apellants contended that the court a quo gravely erred in not considering the justifying circumstance of self-defense and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender interposed by accused-appellant Gary Tabarnero.
Issue:
Are the contentions meritorious?
Ruling:
No. The justifying circumstance of self-defense on the part of Gary cannot be considered
The requisites for self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused; and 3) employment of reasonable means to prevent and repel aggression.
The defense invokes the said justifying circumstance, claiming that all of the above three elements are present in the case at bar. There was allegedly unlawful aggression on the part of Ernesto when the latter delivered the first blow with the lead pipe. According to the defense, the means Gary used to defend himself was reasonable, and the shouting shouted professions of his feelings for about Mary Jane could not be considered provocation sufficient for Ernesto to make the unlawful aggression.
Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requirement of self-defense of self-defense. As ruled by the Court of Appeals, the evidence presented by Gary to prove the alleged unlawful aggression, namely, his own testimony, is insufficient and self-serving. The alleged sudden appearance of Ernesto and his first attack with the lead pipe the very moment Gary decided to leave seems to this Court to be all too convenient, considering that there was no one around to witness the start of the fight.
It also bears to emphasize that by invoking self-defense, Gary, in effect, admitted killing Ernesto, thus, shifting upon him the burden of evidence to prove the elements of the said justifying circumstance. A plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also extremely doubtful in itself.
The defense further argues that assuming that Gary is not qualified to avail of the justifying circumstance of self-defense, he would nevertheless be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense under Article 13(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Gary is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
The first assignment of error presents another issue for the consideration of this Court. The defense argues that Gary’s yielding to Alarma should be credited as a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Solicitor General agreed with the defense on this point. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed, and held that the delay of six months before surrendering negates spontaneity, a requisite for voluntary surrender to be considered mitigating.
We agree with the Court of Appeals.
In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be credited to the accused, the following requisites should be present: (a) the offender has not actually been arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender must be voluntary. A surrender, to be voluntary, must be spontaneous, i.e., there must be an intent to submit oneself to authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses in capturing him.
In the case at bar, appellant surrendered to the authorities after more than one year had lapsed since the incident and in order to disclaim responsibility for the killing of the victim. This neither shows repentance or acknowledgment of the crime nor intention to save the government the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Besides, at the time of his surrender, there was a pending warrant of arrest against him. Hence, he should not be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.