View full case

PEOPLE v. ROLLY PAGADOR

FACTS:

The accused, Rolly Pagador, was charged with two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder. The victims were the Mendez family - Herminigildo and Magdalena Mendez, and their daughters Shirley Mendez, Rosalinda Mendez, and Emily Mendez-Castro. The Mendez family were poor but hardworking peasants in Alaminos, Pangasinan. Accused Pagador was in a relationship with Nenita Mendez, one of the Mendez daughters, and was treated like a member of the family.

In the early morning of October 12, 1996, the Mendez sisters were awakened by their mother's screams. Accused Pagador was seen stabbing their mother with a bolo. Their father was found motionless on the floor, and their youngest sister Shirley was wounded. The Mendez sisters attempted to stop the assailant but were threatened and attacked by him. Emily and Nenita managed to escape out of the window, while Josephine jumped out after seeing her father injured and sister wounded. Rosalinda, the last sister to escape, was attacked and stabbed multiple times by Pagador.

The necropsy reports revealed multiple wounds on the bodies of Herminigildo Mendez. Dr. Maramba, a forensic pathologist, testified that Shirley Mendez sustained multiple injuries on her body, resulting in her death due to massive intra-thoracic hemorrhage. Magdalena Mendez suffered stab wounds and wounds on her abdomen and thoracic cavity, causing massive bleeding. Dr. Vicente Tongson, Jr., a medical officer, examined and treated Rosalinda Mendez and Emily Mendez. Rosalinda had fourteen hacked wounds on different parts of her body, while Emily had an amputated finger and a lacerated wound on another finger.

Accused Pagador denied the accusations against him and claimed self-defense. He alleged that he went to Nenita's house and encountered her father, Herminigildo, who attacked him with a bolo. Rolly claimed that he fought back and gained possession of the bolo. He swung the weapon at the Mendez sisters, but did not know if anyone was hit. He also mentioned Nenita's forced arranged marriage as a possible motive for Herminigildo's hostility towards him.

The trial court found Rolly guilty of the crimes charged, rejecting his self-defense argument. Rolly appealed his conviction, arguing that his plea of self-defense was not properly considered. The court found accused-appellant's claim of self-defense doubtful and not properly established.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused-appellant can invoke self-defense

  2. Whether the court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of three counts of frustrated murder

  3. Whether the intent to kill is proven beyond reasonable doubt for the charges of frustrated murder and murder.

  4. Whether the lower court properly considered the modifying circumstances in determining the penalties for the offenses.

  5. What is the proper penalty for the killing of Magdalena Mendez?

  6. What is the proper penalty for the less serious physical injuries suffered by Shirley Mendez?

  7. What is the proper penalty for the frustrated murder of Rosalinda Mendez?

  8. What is the proper penalty for the serious physical injuries inflicted on Emily Mendez?

  9. Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of robbery with homicide.

  10. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the penalty imposed by the trial court.

  11. Whether or not G.R. No. 143934 should be disregarded as it is a duplication of G.R. No. 140010.

RULING:

  1. The accused-appellant cannot invoke self-defense. The nature and number of injuries inflicted on the deceased and the absence of any corroboration by independent and competent evidence render the accused-appellant's claim of self-defense extremely doubtful. Additionally, it is established that the unlawful aggression ceased as soon as the accused-appellant wrested the bladed weapon from the deceased.

  2. The accused-appellant is guilty of frustrated murder in the case of Rosalinda Mendez. The court finds that the accused-appellant had performed all the acts of execution which tended to produce the death of Rosalinda but failed to cause her death due to her feigning death. The subjective phase had already been passed, and the accused-appellant believed he had consummated the act.

  3. However, the court finds that the accused-appellant is not guilty of frustrated murder in the cases of Shirley and Emily. The prosecution's witnesses did not positively identify the person responsible for Shirley's injuries, and there is no evidence to support the intent to kill. Therefore, the court concludes that the accused-appellant cannot be convicted of frustrated murder in these cases.

  4. The intent to kill is not proven beyond reasonable doubt for the charges of frustrated murder and murder. While it can be assumed that the injuries sustained were inflicted by the accused, there is no clear and evident proof that he intended to take the life of the victims. The circumstances surrounding the incident are inconclusive as to whether the accused purposely injured the victims to kill them. Therefore, the proper charges are physical injuries (less serious) for one victim and serious physical injuries for another victim.

  5. The lower court failed to discuss the modifying circumstances and did not properly determine the appropriate penalties. The existence of treachery, as a qualifying circumstance, was not adequately proven. The manner and mode of attack employed by the accused could not be established with certainty. Therefore, the killing of one victim should be considered as homicide, not murder. However, in the case of the other victim, the accused repeatedly stabbed the unarmed and defenseless victim, indicating the presence of treachery. The killing of this victim should be classified as murder. The nighttime aggravating circumstance should be appreciated for the homicide charge. The court also clarified that the modifying circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be justified without proof of the accused's determination to eliminate the victim. Finally, the court determined the appropriate penalties for the offenses.

  6. The proper penalty for the killing of Magdalena Mendez is reclusion perpetua.

  7. The proper penalty for the less serious physical injuries suffered by Shirley Mendez is arresto mayor.

  8. The proper penalty for the frustrated murder of Rosalinda Mendez is reclusion temporal, with the maximum penalty taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal and the minimum penalty taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor.

  9. The proper penalty for the serious physical injuries inflicted on Emily Mendez is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

  10. The trial court did not err in convicting accused-appellant of robbery with homicide as the evidence presented proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  11. The Court of Appeals did not err in modifying the penalty imposed by the trial court as it was within its power to do so.

  12. G.R. No. 143934 should be disregarded as it is a mere duplication of G.R. No. 140010.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Self-defense as a justifying circumstance must be established by evidence and cannot be invoked without corroboration by independent and competent evidence.

  • Unlawful aggression ceases when the danger on the life and limb of the accused vanishes.

  • The nature and number of wounds are important indicators to disprove the plea of self-defense.

  • Frustrated murder is committed when the accused has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of murder as a consequence but fails to cause it due to reasons independent of the accused's will.

  • Intent to kill is the principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide, or murder. It must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every reasonable doubt.

  • The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.

  • In criminal cases, there is no room for conjectures, and the quantum of proof required must be beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Treachery as a qualifying circumstance must be proved with convincing evidence, showing that the accused employed ways and means to ensure the victim's death and safety from retaliation.

  • The modifying circumstances of nighttime and treachery cannot be considered separately, as nighttime is absorbed by treachery.

  • Evident premeditation requires sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the killing to allow the accused to overcome the resolution of their will if they had desired to hearken to its warnings.

  • In cases where the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. (Art. 63, 2nd par. of The Revised Penal Code)

  • Less serious physical injuries are those which incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more or require medical attendance for the same period. The penalty for this offense is arresto mayor. (Art. 265 of The Revised Penal Code)

  • Frustrated murder is a crime one degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death, which is reclusion temporal. The maximum penalty to be imposed is taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, while the minimum penalty is taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor. (Art. 250 of The Revised Penal Code in relation to Art. 50)

  • Serious physical injuries are those which result in the offended party becoming deformed, losing any part of their body, or losing the use thereof. The penalty for this offense is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. (Art. 263, par. 3 of The Revised Penal Code)

  • The trial court's findings of fact and assessment of credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great weight and respect by appellate courts.

  • The Court of Appeals has the authority to modify the penalty imposed by the trial court within the range provided by law.

  • Duplication of cases should be disregarded and consolidated to avoid unnecessary proceedings.