PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RAMON PLACER

2013-10-09 | G.R. No. 181753

BERSAMIN, J:

FACTS:
Ramon Placer and Virgilio Placer have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of murder and were penalized; Ramon Placer, being the principal by direct
participation involved in the actual killing of Rosalino Gernale has been imposed the indivisible
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstance of
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (Art. 63, Revised Penal Code), with all the accessory penalties while
Virgilio Placer, having been found to be liable as an accomplice, has been imposed the lesser
indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 10
months and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, absent any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance (par. (1), Art. 64, Revised Penal Code, as amended). Both were penalized to
indemnify the heirs of the late Rosalino Gernale jointly and solidarily in the amount of P25,000.00
as actual damages; P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death; and another P50,000.00 as moral
damages; and to pay the costs. Ramon appealed for the affirmance of his conviction for
murder promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) on August 31, 2007.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Ramon Placer’s appeal that he incurred no criminal liability because he
had acted in self-defense in stabbing Rosalino is meritorious.
2. Whether or not the crime committed was homicide, not murder.
3. Whether or not Ramon Placer’s voluntary surrender was a mitigating circumstance that
entitled him to a lower penalty.

RULING:
The Court found and declared Ramon Placer guilty of homicide, and imposed on him
the indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years
of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Ramon’s plea of self-defense was not established. There can be no self-defense, whether
complete or incomplete, if no unlawful aggression from the victim is established. In self-defense,
unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression
attributable to the victim is established, self-defense is not a defense, because there would then
be nothing to repel on the part of the accused. In the case, the aggression originated from
Ramon, not from Rosalino, thereby removing any factual and legal bases for Ramon’s plea of
self-defense.
Ramon committed homicide, not murder. Murder is defined and punished by Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 which provides: “Any
person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances: (1) With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons
to insure or afford impunity.” There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.20 Treachery is not presumed but must be proved as
conclusively as the crime itself. In the instant case, treachery was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt, thus the crime Ramon was properly guilty of was homicide.
Ramon’s voluntary surrender was a mitigating circumstance that lowered the imposable
penalty. Voluntary surrender is a circumstance that reduces the penalty for the offense. Its
requisites as a mitigating circumstance are that: (1) the accused has not been actually
arrested; (2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and (3)
the surrender is voluntary. The act of Ramon in voluntarily yielding himself is an indication that
the surrender was spontaneous on his part; indicating his intent to unconditionally submit himself
to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or he wished to save them the
trouble and expenses necessary for his search and capture.
 PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO y SANTOS vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
2015-06-15 | G.R. No. 194129

SERENO, C.J.:

FACTS:
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated 10 May 2006
in Criminal Case No. 00-183183, finding accused-appellant Police Officer 1 Crispin Ocampo
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The accused-appellant was charge
with the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, of having shot Mario
De Luna y Hallare to death while they are having drinking session. Ocampo admitted that he
shot the victim to death but claimed to have done so in self-defense and that he was left with
no other recourse but to use his service firearm to neutralize the aggressor. Accompanied by
Police Senior Inspector Rosauro Dalisay, PO1 Ocampo appeared at the Western Police District
and surrendered his service firearm. On appeal, the conviction of Ocampo was affirmed and
some monetary damages were modified.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove accused-appellant’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

RULING:
The Court has carefully reviewed the case records and finds accused-appellant’s
conviction proper.
It is a well-settled doctrine that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses
deserve a high degree of respect. Having observed their deportment in court, the trial judge is
in a better position to determine the issue of credibility. For this reason, the findings of trial judges
will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that they have
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance
that could have altered the conviction of appellants. In the case at bar, the circumstances
pointed out by accused-appellant are too trivial to affect the assessment and the eventual
findings of the trial court that he indeed committed the crime.
 The Court is convinced that the accused-appellant is guilty of homicide. The penalty for
homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. Considering that
there is one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no aggravating circumstance
that attended the commission of the crime, the imposable penalty, pursuant to Article 64 (2) of
the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion temporal in its minimum period. This being a divisible
penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. Accordingly, accused -appellant can
be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the minimum of which shall be within the range of
prision mayor and the maximum of which shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period, there being one ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and
no aggravating circumstance.
The appeal was dismissed. The Decision of the Court of Appeals Manila in CA-G.R. CR
No. 30957 dated 23 April 2010 is hereby affirmed with modification in that accused-appellant
PO1 Crispin Ocampo y Santos is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and is
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is
further ordered to pay the heirs of Mario de Luna the amounts of P75,000 as civil indemnity,
P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as temperate damages.