G.R. No. 179278 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES , vs. CHARLIE VILLA, JR., Accused. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Charlie Villa, Jr. is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged and is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua . Said accused is hereby further ordered to pay the heirs of Rodolfo Arevalo y Gamboa the amount of Php50,000.00 as death indemnity and another amount of Php50,000.00 as temperate damages. The period during which the accused had undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in his favor in serving the foregoing sentence. [23] On 6 November 2002, appellant filed a notice of appeal. [24] The trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. This Court, however, referred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review, conformably to the ruling in People v. Mateo . [25] The Court of Appeals, on 13 March 2007, promulgated its Decision affirming the decision of the RTC in all respects, except the award of temperate damages which it reduced from the amount of P50,000.00 to P25,000.00. The Court of Appeals decreed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73 of Antipolo City dated October 9, 2002 finding accused-appellant Charlie Villa, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED. The award of temperate damages is hereby reduced to P25,000.00. [26] Hence, the instant case. In his brief, the appellant assigns a single error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF-DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Appellant takes exception to the trial court's verdict convicting him and maintains that he was able to prove by competent evidence all the elements of self-defense. To support this, he states that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased Rodolfo Arevalo, when the latter hit him with a club or a piece wood. It was fortunate that appellant was able to evade the first swing, but eventually he was hit by the second. Before appellant could further harm him and put his life on the verge of danger, appellant instinctively retaliated by boxing the victim on his nape, which he did not know would result in Rodolfo's demise. Appellant claims he hit the victim only once, but because the latter was drunk, he lost his balance and fell down. According to appellant, the act of punching the victim was commensurate with the onslaught initiated and continued by the latter, thereby exposing appellant to an imminent and actual danger to his life. Appellant insists that when he boxed the victim, he was merely employing reasonable means to repel the attack carried out by the victim. Appellant likewise asserts that he was able to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim since he initiated the attack by clobbering appellant. Having established all elements of self-defense, appellant argues he deserves acquittal. T