Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 132043 -

G.R. No. 132043 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. TEOFISTO COTAS Y LIMPIAHOY, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

En Banc

Cited Laws

RA 464RA 433RA 88RA 151RA 505RA 404RA 611RA 400RA 285RA 327RA 758RA 380RA 713RA 451RA 515RA 708RA 185RA 67
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment sentencing accused Teofisto Cotas to suffer the penalty of death, to pay the heirs of Rossman Asuncion the following sums: P50,000,00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 representing expenses incurred during the funeral, burial and wake of the deceased and P1,840,000,00 as lost earnings/income and to pay the costs.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment sentencing accused Teofisto Cotas to suffer the penalty of death, to pay the heirs of Rossman Asuncion the following sums: P50,000,00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 representing expenses incurred during the funeral, burial and wake of the deceased and P1,840,000,00 as lost earnings/income and to pay the costs. In this appeal, accused-appellant alleges that: [15] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING SELF-DEFENSE AS A GROUND FOR [THE] ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS AT ALL GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT NEVERTHELESS ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM FOR MURDER INSTEAD OF ONLY HOMICIDE. First. Accused-appellant reiterates his contention below that he acted in self-defense when he stabbed and killed Rossman Asuncion. He thus admits committing the acts constituting the crime for which he was charged, [16] and the burden of proof is on him to establish, by clear and convincing proof, the following requisites of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. [17] Of these requisites, unlawful aggression, i.e., the sudden and unprovoked attack on the person defending himself, is indispensable. [18] Absent such element, no claim of self-defense can be successfully interposed. [19] In this case, the prosecutions principal witness, Lady Angela, despite the fact that she was then barely four years old, described very clearly how accused-appellant stabbed her father. She said: [20] PROS. LOMARDA . . . . Q What is the name of your father? A Jojo, sir. Q Do you know a person by the name of Kuya Jovy? ATTY. PAJARES: No basis, Your Honor. COURT: Witness may answer. A Yes, sir. PROS. LOMARDA: Q If Kuya Jovy is inside the courtroom, will you please point to him. A Yes, sir. He is there (pointing to a man inside the courtroom who, when asked[,] answered by the name of Teofisto Cotas). Q Where is your Papa Jojo now? A In the cemetery, sir. Q Why is he in the cemetery? A He is already dead, sir. Q Do you know how he died? A He was stabbed, sir. Q Who stabbed him? A Kuya Jovy, sir. . . . . Q How many times did your Kuya Jovy stab your father? A Many times, sir.... Q Kitkat, what was your father doing when your Kuya Jovy stabbed him? A He was sleeping, sir. Q What was his position while he was sleeping? A He was lying face down, sir. Q Did you notice when your Kuya Jovy entered your house? A Yes, sir. Q Before your father was stabbed by your Kuya Jovy, did your father and your Kuya Jovy engage in any conversation? A No, sir. Q After you saw your Kuya Jovy stab your father, what did you do? A I jumped, sir. Q Where did you jump? A In our stairs, sir. Q Where did you go after jumping in your stairs? A To my mother, sir. Q Were you able to see your mother? A Yes, sir. Q What did you tell your mother? A "Mam