LAMORENA, EFREN ANTHONY RIZALDY

G.R. No. 77776 June 27, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.
ROMEO AGAPINAY, ALEX AGAPINAY, FORTUNATO AGAPINAY, DANTE AGAPINAY,
DELFIN AGAPINAY and CIRILO AGAPINAY,
On April 13, 1981, Virgilio took the portable shed that were using by the
accused without permission of the latter. Hence, Romeo Agapinay berated Virgilio
for taking the shed. Shortly, the two exchanged words and tempers apparently
flared. Romeo stabbed him in his right arm while Delfin and Fortunato Agapinay
held his arms. Romeo stabbed him for the second time at the right s side of his
back. Virgilio, however, managed to extricate himself again and ran away. While he
was running, Delfin, Alex, Fortunate, Dante, and Cirilo threw rocks at him. All of a
sudden Amor Flores appeared and plunged a knife at the back of Virgilio. It was
then that Virgilio collapsed. Antonio and Eufemio Paino, brothers of Virgilio, and
Artemio Siababa brought the wounded Virgilio to the Don Alfonso Enrile Hospital at
Gonzaga however he was declared dead on arrival. But before he died he confessed
that Agapinays as well as Amor Flores, as responsible for the incident. During
arraignment, all six accused pleaded "not guilty. The lower court found that the
Agapinays had conspired to kill Virgilio Paino and thus held them, all principals by
participation.
Issue:
I.

Whether there was a conspiracy on the part of Agapinays when they

committed the crime charged.

II.

Whether there was an unlawful aggression acted by Virgilio.

III.

Agapinays are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder

qualified by treachery.

RULING:
The Supreme Court held that,
I.
NO. Conspiracy has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt to hold all six
accused as co-principals in the crime of murder. Conspiracy means, however, an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and a decision to commit it. If

the tragedy was a chance stabbing, there can be no conspiracy to speak of.
Hence, the parties' liability should be considered individually. Only Romeo,
Delfin, and Fortunato should be held as principals in the crime of murder. Romeo
is guilty, as he admitted in open court, by direct participation, while Delfin and
Fortunate are liable as principals by cooperation. In holding the victim by his
arms, both allowed Romeo to inflict upon him a stab wound. Alex, Dante, and
Cirilo, on the other hand, should be held as simple accomplices for their acts of
pelting the victim with rocks. Since the deceased had already sustained two stab
wounds, the act of hurling rocks at him was not indispensable to justify holding
them legally liable as principals.
II.
NO. Defense of relatives" requires the concurrence of three elements: (1)
unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and (3) the person defending the relative had no part in
provoking the assailant, should any provocation have been given by the
person attacked. Of these three requisites, "unlawful aggression" is said to
be the most essential and primary, without which any "defense" is not
possible or justified. Thus: "If there is no unlawful aggression there would be
nothing to prevent or repel." In that event, not even incomplete self-defense
can be validly invoked. The Court is not persuaded that Virgilio Paino had
acted with unlawful aggression that might have provoked the Agapinays'
deadly wrath. The records show that all that Virgilio did was to address
offensive language to Delfin Agapinay. In one case, it was held that 'injurious
words or threats do not amount to unlawful aggression. Assuming that
Virgilio did strike Delfin and Romeo Agapinay with a paddle, the expedients
reveals that thereafter and upon having been stabbed in the right arm by
Romeo, he, Virgilio, ran away. It has also been ruled that: "Self-defense does
not justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from the
fray." However, the accused should be entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of provocation (or vindication of a grave offense or passion or obfuscation.
Since clearly, the deceased uttered offending words made the Agapinays,
especially Romeo, react violently. While the trial court disregarded this
particular piece of evidence, the entire picture seems to indicate that Virgilio
Paino did say bad words that made the Agapinays act in retaliation.
III.
NO. There is further no doubt that murder has been committed, but not
because of treachery, as ruled by the trial court. Treachery depends on the
suddenness of the attack, by which the victim is rendered hors d'combat, as
in an ambuscade, or any manner in which the victim is deprived of all
defenses,
and
in
which
the
malefactor
faces
no
risk
to
himself. The manner of attack must be shown. There is no such showing

here. The fact that Delfin and Fortunato Agapinay held Virgilio Paino while
Romeo stabbed him, does not demonstrate treachery. Rather, what it proves
is abuse of superiority. It is indeed plain from the records that the trio of
Romeo, Delfin, and Fortunato had taken advantage of their strength to
overcome the victim who, at that time, was already injured. Abuse of
superiority qualifies the taking of the life of another into murder.