People vs. Japag and Liporada Case Digest (G.R. No. 223155) | 2018 - Synopsis Only
G.R. No. 223155, July 23, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANILO JAPAG AND ALVIN LIPORADA, Accused,
DANILO JAPAG, Accused-Appellant.
Full Text:
Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Nature of Petition:
Assailed in this appeal is the May 21, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 01807 which affirmed with modification the October 29, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Carigara, Leyte, finding appellant Danilo Japag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The May 21, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 01807 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of exemplary damages is increased to P75,000.00; and in lieu of actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is awarded.
Doctrines:
The most important requisite of self-defense is unlawful aggression which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a justifying circumstance. In other words, unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the accused, "self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated, for the two other essential elements [thereof] would have no factual and legal bases without any unlawful aggression to prevent or repel."
Unlawful aggression "contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of [a] weapon."
After a thorough review of the records, we find that appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the unlawful aggression had originated from the victim.
First, it is undisputed that appellant boarded a motorcycle and fled the situs criminis immediately after stabbing the victim at the back. "Flight is a veritable badge of guilt and negates the plea of self-defense."
Second, the location, nature and seriousness of the wound sustained by the victim is inconsistent with self-defense; rather, these factors indicate a determined effort to kill.
Summary:
In the case of People vs. Japag and Liporada, the defendants were accused of the murder of the victim. The victim was stabbed to death by Japag while Liporada held him in place and Macalalag blocked his way. The defendants fled the scene after the attack. The defendants raised the defense of self-defense, but the court found it insufficient as the burden of proof was not met. The court ruled that the victim did not show any unlawful aggression towards the defendants. Additionally, the court found that the victim's killing was attended by treachery as he was stabbed from behind and held in place, leaving him no opportunity to defend himself. As a result, the court found the defendants guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Synopsis:
In the case of People vs. Japag and Liporada, the defendants were charged with the murder of the victim. The incident took place when Ramil Parrocho, the twin brother of the victim, witnessed Japag, Liporada, and Macalalag blocking the victim's way as he was about to enter the school gate. Liporada punched the victim on his left cheek, while Macalalag held him in place. Japag then drew a bladed weapon from his pocket and stabbed the victim from behind. The victim fell on the ground and was rushed to the hospital, but he was pronounced dead on arrival.
During the trial, the defendants raised the defense of self-defense, claiming that they were attacked by the victim. However, the court found this defense insufficient. The burden of proof was on the defendants to prove the existence of the requisites of self-defense, namely, the unlawful aggression of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means used to repel such aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The court found that the defendants failed to prove that the unlawful aggression had originated from the victim.
The court also ruled that the victim's killing was attended by treachery. Treachery exists when the offender uses methods that tend to ensure the execution of the crime without any risk to himself. In this case, Japag attacked the victim from behind while Liporada held him in place, leaving him no opportunity to defend himself. The attack was sudden and unexpected, and the victim's brother and nearby security guards were unable to prevent it.
Therefore, the court found the defendants guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The totality of the circumstances clearly showed that the defendants had no justification for their actions, and their acts were done with intent to kill. The court upheld the decision of the lower court and affirmed the conviction of Japag and Liporada.