ftO

··......

3aepu1Jlic of tbe ~IJilippineg

:€Supreme QI:ourt
~aguio q[itp

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 232247

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CARPIO,* J., Chairperson,

PERALTA,
- versus - PERLAS-BERNABE,
CAGUIOA, and
REYES, JR., JJ.

JR, Promulgated:
-i~c\ii)-x
0 Z y

RONILL
MANT ALABAAccused-Appell~=-----------------------~lj (j
LOPE '
@ "DODONG "•
x---------------------------------------
23 AP-R :mm
--::: __!.__

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This is an appeal from the January 6, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07936, which affirmed the December
1, 2015 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 197, Las Pifias City
(RTC), finding accused-appellant Ronillo Lopez, Jr. y Mantalaba (Ronillo ),
alias "Dodong" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide as defined and
penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.

Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and
Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sernpio Diy, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-8.
2
Penned by Judge Ismael T. Duldulao; CA rollo, pp. 65-76 .

........ -
(/
Decision -2- G.R. No. 232247

The Facts

·Ronillo was charged with the crime of Parricide in an Information 3

dated May 19, 2014, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 16th day of May, 2014, in the City of Las Pifias,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon RONILLO
LOPEZ y MADRONO, his father, by then and there stabbing him, which
directly caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 4

When arraigned, Ronillo pleaded not guilty to the charge. After pre-
trial was terminated, trial on the merits followed.

Version of the Prosecution

As summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General in the Appellee's

5
Brief, the People's version of the event is as follows:

At 2:00 A.M. of May 16, 2014, Martita Lopez was at her house in
Sambayanihan, Las Pifias City, when she heard her grandson, appellant
herein, shout "Lola! Lola! Tulungan mo po aka." When she asked what
happened, appellant told her that "nasaksak ko si papa." They immediately
went to the house located at 2461 Panay Street, Timog CAA, Las Pifias City,
where she found her son, Ronillo Lopez, Sr. lying on the ground. Saturnina
Madrofio, who also heard appellant's admission and cry for help, went with
Martita and appellant to the house at Panay Street, checked the victim's
pulse and determined that he was already dead. Thereafter, they reported
the incident to the police.

The medico-legal examination conducted on the victim revealed that

he suffered multiple physical injuries including abrasions and contusions.
The cause of death was the stab wound to his chest.

Appellant fled from the scene after the incident, but was later
arrested at his brother-in-law's house in Dela Rama St., BF Homes,
Parafiaque City, based on a tip by a certain Samuel Lopez. 6

6
CA rollo, pp. 19-20.
Id. at 19.
Id. at 87-98.
r7
Id. at 91-92.
 ··... , ~

Decision -3- G.R. No. 232247

Version of th(! Defense

Ronillo admitted that he stabbed his father, but maintained that he

merely acted in self-defense. The defense gave the following version in the
Appellants' Brief? to support Ronillo' s plea for exoneration:

On 15 May 2014, the accused RONILLO LOPEZ, JR. was with his
father, Lopez, Sr., and his cousins and uncles at an uncle's home having a
".fih:inking spree. He, thereafter, went home ahead, in a drunken state. When
he arrived home, he slept. He then woke up to the beatings inflicted upon
him by his drunken father, Lopez, Sr., who was saying "BAKIT KA
NAGSUSUMBONG!" He answered back that he knows nothing his father
was accusing him of. Lopez, Sr. then urged his own son to fight back, but
the latter would not. Lopez, Sr. then took a hard object and struck it on his
son's head. The accused, overcome with passion and his judgment
obfuscated by the blows done by his father ("Nagdilim po ang aking
paningin at di nakapagpigil"), struck back with a knife, stabbing his father.
When he saw his stricken father lying down, he cried and sought help, first
with Michael who was renting the second floor of his home, then from his
grandmother, and later visited his mother at her workplace. Accused's
sister, ROBILIE LOPEZ, was informed of her father's death by her
grandmother. He went to his sister and remorsefully told her what happened.
Afraid, he then stayed at his brother-in-law's house and surrendered the next
day. He was then brought to the Las Piftas Health Center by the police for
the injuries he sustained from his father's attacks. Robilie revealed that her
father, when drunk, would utter curses at his son. In one previous incident,
she witnessed her drunken father pushed and collared her brother. 8

The RTC Ruling

On December 1, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision finding accused-

appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. According to
the RTC, all the elements of the crime of Parricide were satisfactorily
i
proven
by the prosecution. The RTC rejected the self-defense invoked by RoniUo
declaring that the same was not only uncorroborated by competent and
independent evidence but, in itself, extremely doubtful under the
circumstances obtaining in the case. It ruled that the element of unlawful
aggression is wanting. The RTC debunked Ronillo's claim for entitlement to
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender stating that he never
surrendered but was in fact arrested by the police the following morning after
the stabbing incident. In the end, the RTC decreed:

7
Id. at 54-63.
Id. at 58-59. t7
Decision -4- G.R. No. 232247

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds accused

Ronillo Lopez, Jr. y Mantalaba @ "Dodong", guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Parricide under Article 246, as amended by R.A. 7659,
and further amended by R.A. 9346, and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole.

Further, the accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of the

deceased/victim Ronillo Lopez y Madrofio the amount of Php60,000.00 as
actual damages, Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral
damages, and another amount of Php50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED. 9

Not
in conformity, Ronillo appealed his conviction for Parricide
........
before the CA.

The CA Ruling

On January 6, 2017, the CA rendered its assailed Decision affirming

Ronillo's conviction for Parricide. The appellate court did not lend credence
to Ronillo' s claim of self-defense, stressing that not an iota of evidence was
adduced to show any form of aggression on the part of the deceased victim.
It sustained the findings of the R TC that all the elements of the crime charged
were duly established by the prosecution. The CA held that the proper penalty
is reclusion perpetua since no modifying circumstances attended the
commission of the crime and, thus, deleted the phrase "without eligibility of
parole." Finally, the CA increased the amount awarded by way of exemplary
damages to 1:ns,ooo.oo. Thefallo of which reads:

....... -
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 01
December 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 197, Las Pifias City, in
Criminal Case No. 14-0396, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
in that the penalty on accused-appellant shall be Reclusion Perpetua and
that he is ordered to pay Sixty Thousand Pesos (P.60,000.00) as actual
damages, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P.75,000.00) as civil indemnity,
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P.75,000.00) as moral damages, and
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P.75,000.00) as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED. 10

9
ti
Id. at 76.
10
Rollo, p. 7.

--......
Decision -5- G.R. No. 232247

The Issues

-.Unfazed, Ronillo filed the present appeal and posited the same lone
assignment of error he previously raised before the CA, to wit:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE DESPITE THE
FACT THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS THEREOF ARE PRESENT IN THIS
CASE. 11

In the Resolution 12 dated August 9, 2017, the Court directed both

parties to submit their supplemental briefs, if they so desired. On October 23,
201 7, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Manifestation (in Lieu of
Supplemental Brief) 13 stating that it will no longer file a supplemental brief as
its Appellee's Brief had sufficiently ventilated the lone issue raised. On
October 27, 2017, the accused-appellant filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of
Supplemental Brief) 14 averring that he would adopt all his arguments in his
Appellant's Brief filed before the CA .
...... .

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, Ronillo's conviction must

stand.

The factual premises with regard to the killing of Lopez, Sr. and its
commission by Ronillo are clear and undisputed. Ronillo did not at all deny
the allegations against him and openly admitted the authorship of the crime.
However, he interposes self-defense to seek his exculpation from criminal
liability. In Macalino, Jr. v. People, 15 the Court elucidated the implications of
pleading self-defense insofar as the burden of proof is concerned, thus:

In pleading self-defense, petitioner in effect admitted that he stabbed

·.1;he victim. It was then incumbent upon him to prove that justifying
circumstance to the satisfaction of the court, relying on the strength of his
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. The reason is that

II
12
13
14
15
CA rollo p. 56.
Rollo pp. 14-15.
Id. at 16-18.
Id. at 22-24.
394 Phil. 309, 323 (2000). (Citation omitted)
if!
Decision -6- G.R. No. 232247

even if the prosecution evidence were weak, such could not be disbelieved
after petitioner admitted the fact of stabbing the victim .
..., ... ~

In criminal cases, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he
was in fact innocent. If the accused, however, admits killing the victim, but
pleads self-defense, it now becomes incumbent upon him to prove by clear,
satisfactory and convincing evidence all the elements of said justifying
circumstance in order to escape liability. 16 In the case at bench, Ronillo failed
to discharge his burden.

Self-defense is appreciated as a justifying circumstance only if the

following requisites were present, namely: (1) the victim committed unlawful
aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the
person acting in self-defense; (2) there was reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) there was lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense, or,
at lea~t.,. ~my provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense was not
the proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression. 17 The justifying
circumstance of self-defense must be established with certainty through
satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal
aggression on the part of the persons invoking it. Self-defense cannot be
appreciated where it was uncorroborated by competent evidence, or is patently
doubtful. 18

At the heart of the claim for self-defense is the element of unlawful

aggression committed by the victim against the accused, which is the
condition sine qua non for upholding the same as a justifying circumstance.
There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim
committed unlawful aggression against the accused. 19 If there is nothing to
prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no factual
and legal bases20 Unlawful aggression as an indispensable requisite is aptly
described in People v. Nugas, 21 as follows:

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial

element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful
aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test
for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether
the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of

ti
16
Flores v. People, 705 Phil. 119, 133 (2013).
17
Razon v. People, 552 Phil. 359, 373 (2007).
18
People v. Escohal, G.R. No. 206292, October 11, 2017.
19
People v. Escarlos, 457 Phil. 580, 598 (2003).
20
People v. Dulin, G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015.
21
677 Phil. 168, 177 (2011).
Decision -7- G.R. No. 232247

the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or

imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence
of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a
physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual,
or at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.
....... _

Ronillo argues that the justifying circumstance of self-defense should

have been appreciated in his favor because all its elements had been present
in the commission of the crime. Accused-appellant is mistaken.

In pleading self-defense, Ronillo testified that it was the victim who

initially assaulted him. According to Ronillo, he was awakened on that fatal
early morning of May 16, 2014 by the beatings inflicted by his drunken father,
Lopez, Sr., who punched and kicked him unceremoniously. Still not satisfied,
Lopez, Sr. took a hard object and struck it on his head. The alleged acute
battering he suffered in the hands of his father overwhelmed him and put him
in such an emotional and mental state which overcame his reason and impelled
him to protect his life by grabbing a kitchen knife and used it to stab the latter.
He maintains that he sustained injuries on the left side of his forehead and
broken lips due to the attacks launched by the victim. Defense witness Robilie,
sister of Ronillo, corroborated her brother's claim that the latter sustained
injurie~d.iuring the stabbing incident. She testified that while she was talking
to said appellant, who was at her house at that time, about the incident, she
noticed that the latter had a wound on his forehead, his cheeks were swollen
and he had some abrasions on his hands. Appellant insists that he merely acted
under the instinct of self-preservation and thus, he was legally justified in
using the knife to ward off the unlawful aggression so as not to expose him to
unnecessary danger.

The Court is not persuaded.

Ronillo' s plea of self-defense was belied by the physical evidence in

the case at bench tending to show that Lopez, Sr. did not commit unlawful
aggression against said appellant. Indeed, had Lopez, Sr. mauled and attacked
Ronillo, the latter would have sustained some injury from the aggression. It
remains, however, that no injury of any kind or gravity was found on the
persol).. Qf Ronillo when he was brought to the Las Pifias City Health Center
by his arresting officer, P02 Marcelino Fuller, for medical examination. The
attending physician, Dr. Joseph Aron Rey I. Manapsal (Dr. Manapsal),
testified that after examining Ronillo, he found that the latter has no external
signs of physical injuries and such diagnosis was reflected in the Medical
Certificate dated May 16, 2014 he issued. It is important to point out also that
no medication was applied or prescribed by Dr. Manapsal on Ronillo which
further confirmed that such injuries never existed. Even granting arguendo

(//
Decision -8- G.R. No. 232247

that Ronillo suffered injuries as claimed by the defense, such injuries were
surely not serious or severe as it was not even detected by Dr. Manapsal. The
superficiality of the injuries was not an indication that appellant's life and
limb were in actual peril. 22

In stark contrast, Lopez, Sr. suffered multiple injuries consisting of an

abrasion on the forehead, an abrasion on the left eyebrow, a hematoma on the
right hand, contusion and abrasion on the right leg and a stab wound on the
chest as shown in the Medico Legal Report No. A-14-299. Prosecution
witness PSI Reah Cornelio testified that she examined the cadaver of Lopez,
Sr. and noted that the cause of his death was the single stab wound on the
victim's chest because it pierced the left lung, pericardia! sac and heart and
fractui't~d the ribs. PSI Cornelio further testified that the hematoma may have
been caused by punching, while the abrasion on the forehead and left eyebrow
may have been caused by fist blows.

Taken in the light of the foregoing, this Court is convinced that Lopez,
Sr. was by no means the unlawful aggressor. We consider as significant the
means used by Ronillo, the gravity and location of the stab wound as well as
the abrasions, contusion and hematoma sustained by Lopez, Sr. which
revealed his intent to kill, not merely an effort to prevent or repel an alleged
attack from said victim. The nature and location of the victim's wound
manifest appellant's resolve to end the life of the victim, 23 and not just to
defend himself. In any event, the question as to who between the accused and
the victim was the unlawful aggressor was a question of fact best addressed
to and left with the trial court for determination based on the evidence on
record. 24 In the case at bench, the RTC found appellant Ronillo to be the
unlawful aggressor.

Even if it were to be granted that Lopez, Sr. was the initial aggressor,
the nature of the wound and the weapon used showed that the means employed
by Ronillo was not reasonable and commensurate to the alleged unlawful
aggression of the victim. The unreasonableness became even more apparent
from the fact, as duly admitted by appellant himself, that the victim had
obviously been inebriated at the time of the aggression. It would have then
been easier for Ronillo to have subdued Lopez, Sr. without resorting to the
excessive means of stabbing the latter's chest with a kitchen knife. Verily, it
was far from a reasonably necessary means to repel the supposed aggression
of Lopez, Sr. Appellant thereby fails in satisfying the second requisite of self-
defense.

22
23
Mahawan v. People, 595 Phil. 397, 415 (2008).
People v. Vicente, 452 Phil. 986, I 002 (2003).
{7
24
People v. Mayingque, 638 Phil. 119, 138 (2010).
Decision -9- G.R. No. 232247

Other circumstances also render appellant's claim of self-defense as

dubious and unworthy of belief. Here, appellant did not inform the authorities
at the earliest opportunity that he stabbed his father in self-defense, neither
did he surrender right away the kitchen knife which he used in stabbing the
victim:Instead, appellant hid himself from the authorities and was arrested
only after a certain Samuel Lopez tipped his whereabouts to the police.
Jurisprudence has repeatedly declared that flight is an indication of guilt. The
flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established "for a truly
innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to
defend himself and to assert his innocence." 25 Also, Ronillo only invoked self-
defense when he could no longer conceal his deed.

In his attempt at exculpation, Ronillo asserts that credence should not

have been accorded to the testimony of Dr. Manapsal because said prosecution
witness admitted that his nurse was the one who filled up the medical
certificate and that there are injuries that might appear a few hours after they
were inflicted .

. . Ronillo's argument deserves scant consideration. Let it be underscored

that during his cross-examination, Dr. Manapsal explained that the variance
of handwritings in the medical certificate was due to the fact that it was his
nurse who wrote appellant's name and other personal details thereon, but the
notation "no external signs of physical injuries" was in his handwriting. The
Court notes that the defense took inconsistent stands. During trial, it claimed
that right after the stabbing incident, appellant already had visible injuries
allegedly caused by the attack of his father through the testimonies ofRonillo
and his sister, Robilie. However, on appeal, it contended that the reason why
Dr. Manapsal saw no such injuries in the body of appellant at the time of his
physical examination was because there are some injuries that become visible
a few hours after they were inflicted. At any rate, Dr. Manapsal clarified that
by his experience, it would not be possible in appellant's case that the injuries
would manifest only after examination. Dr. Manapsal stood firm in his
observation that he did not see any injury on Ronillo when he examined the
latter on May 16, 2014. The Court lends credence to Dr. Manapsal, a
government physician, for he is presumed to have performed his duty in a
regularmanner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive
on his part. Appellant failed to overcome the aforesaid presumption.

With appellant's failure to prove self-defense, the inescapable

conclusion is that he is guilty of Parricide as correctly found by the R TC and
affirmed by the CA. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2)

25
People v. Diaz, 443 Phil. 67, 89 (2003), citing People v. def Mundo, 418 Phil. 740, 753 (200 I).

/I
Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 232247

the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father,
mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other
ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. All
these elements were duly established and proven by the prosecution. The fact
of death by Lopez, Sr. was shown in the medico-legal report and the victim's
death certificate; Ronillo admitted that he killed Lopez, Sr. by stabbing the
latter with a kitchen knife; and the relationship between appellant and Lopez,
Sr. as son and father was established through the former's birth certificate and
the marriage certificate of his parents.

We find that the prison term imposed by the CA in Criminal Case No.
14-0396 is proper and, hence, shall no longer be disturbed by this Court.
Finally/the CA is correct in awarding P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity,
moral damages and exemplary damages being consistent with the Court's
pronouncement in People v. Jugueta. 26 The award of P60,000.00 as actual
damages is maintained. Further, six percent (6%) interest per annum shall be
imposed on all damages awarded to be reckoned from the date of the finality
of this judgment until fully paid. 27

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court

of Appeals dated January 6, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07936 is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Ronillo Lopez, Jr.
y Mantalaba @ "Dodong" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Parricide and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is
ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Ronillo Lopez, Sr. y Madrofio the amounts
of P60,000.00 as actual damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00
as moral damages, and P75,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.

Accused-appellant is also ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate of six

percent (6o/o) per annum from the time of finality of this Decision until fully
paid, to be imposed on the actual damages, civil indemnity, moral damages
and exemplary damages.

(/V

26
783 Phil. 806(2016).
27
People v. Romohio, G.R. No. 227705, October 11, 2017.
Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 232247

SO ORDERED.

··......

WE CONCUR:

Acting Chief Justice

Chairperson

ESTELA M~k~RNABE
-..... Associate Justice

ANDRE~·YES, JR.
AssJcicN;fustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

~ ...... ~

Acting Chief Justice