AMBROSIO RONQUILLO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (614 SCRA 704) Case Digest

FACTS:

On September 8, 1988 at about 1:00 o’clock in the morning , Tomas Ronquillo upon arriving home from their poultry and copra dryer summoned his wife to open the door. Just as the wife did and Tomas was about to enter the house, the accused and brother of deceased, Ambrosio Ronquillo appeared from behind Tomas and stabbed him several times. Allegedly, Perlinda Ronquillo, wife of the accused, was also at the scene, and upon seeing that Tomas was still alive, commanded her husband to add more strike to the victim. The accused thereby complied with his wife’s command. The incident was also witnessed by the five year old daughter of the victim Snooky Ronquillo and Porieria Lingaya. Physician’s post mortem findings indicate that the victim suffered 4 stub wounds that resulted in acute blood loss and in the instantaneous death of the victim.

Accused admits having stabbed to death his brother but professed that he did it in self-defense. He testified that he was at home when, unexplainably, Tomas threw a piece of wood inside the house; that he picked up the wood and used it to parry the bolo thrusts of the victim; that the bolo fell from the victim’s hand; and that, seizing the bolo, he then stabbed the victim to death.

A case was filed at the Regional Trial Court of Lianga, Surigao, and upon evaluating the evidence, the accused, Ambrosio Ronquillo was found guilty, and his wife, Perlinda Ronquillo innocent of the crime charged. P30,000.00 was awarded for the indemnity of the life of the victim, P10,000.00 as moral damages, P10,000.00 for exemplary damages and P6,000.00 for funeral and burial assistance.

Thus, the appeal to this Court.

ISSUES:

1.  Whether or not the court a quo erred in not appreciating self defense in favor of the accused;
2. Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the accused guilty of murder instead of homicide since no qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was proven and neither was the qualifying circumstance of treachery;
3. Whether or not the court a quo erred in appreciating nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING:

1. The accused has the burden of substantiating the claim for self-defense. He must prove clearly and convincingly 3 elements, i.e. (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Based on the evidence submitted and the testimony of eyewitness Ponferia Lingaya, the Court finds that the court a quo was correct in rejecting the claim for self-defense.
2. The essence of treachery was sufficiently established by the prosecution. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim depriving the latter any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring without risk its commission. In this case, the coming out from hiding behind the house of the victim instantly and without warning delivered the bolo thrust on the unwary victim.
3. The Court finds that aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be appreciated since it was not shown to have been deliberately sought by the accused. No such evidence has been presented and nocturnity is deemed ordinarily absorbed in trachery.

The decision of the lower court was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to indemnify the heirs in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), in line with current jurisprudence.