096. PEOPLE v.

BELTRAN
G.R. No. 168051 | September 27, 2006 | First Division | Appeal
People – plaintiff-appellee
Honorato Beltran – accused-appellant
Decision by: Chico-Nazario, J.
Digest by: KY Bautista

Short version: Beltran hacked the victim Norman using a bolo.

Norman was just walking on a street at night, minding his own
business.

Norman’s body was almost decapitated. SC says no presence of the

mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation because its
elements (1. That the provocation or threat must be sufficient or
proportionate to the crime committed and adequate to arouse one
to its commission; 2. That the provocation or threat must
originate from the offended party; 3. That the provocation must
be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person
provoked) are not present in this case. There was no provocation.

Facts:
 In the Info, Beltran was accused of Murder: That with a
bolo, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, he
attacked, without warning, a Norman Concepcion, thereby
killing Norman.
 Prosecution presented 5 witnesses. In summary, 2
eyewitnesses saw Beltran repeated hacking the victim even
when the victim already fell and was trying to run away. The
victim’s sister provided the motive (killer and victim had a
fight before). The medical examiner said the victim was
almost decapitated and the cause of death was massive blood
loss.
1. One witness (Ever) working as a gasoline boy testified
that at 10pm, he went home using his bicycle. Then he
say Beltran with a bolo (about 6 mtrs away). On the
opposite side of the road, he saw Norman the victim
standing in front of a car repair shop. Then he saw
Beltran approach the victim and without warning, hacked
using the bolo. The victim tried to shield his face
with his left arm. He was wounded and tried to run
away. Norman fell to the grassy area, but Beltran still
repeatedly hacked. Ever informed a relative who
informed a certain Baliwag who informed the victim’s
sister, Normita.
2. Another witness (Rolando), a carpenter, supported
Ever’s testimony. He was walking to buy medicines when
he saw (about 15 mtrs away) Beltran hacking the victim
 using a bolo. He also saw the victim fall to the ground
but Beltran still continued hacking. He went home and
told his wife. When the tanod and police arrived later,
he told them what he saw. Beltran was his former
employee so he personally knew him. The witness also
personally knew the victim because the victim was his
wife’s relative. He also knew of a previous fight
Beltran and the victim had which was settled with the
brgy office.
3. SPO1 Mendoza, the investigating officer said that he
and another policeman rushed to the scene. The 2nd
witness (Rolando) and the victim’s sister talked with
him. The police went to Beltran’s house but he wasn’t
there. 2 days after, a certain Dimacuha surrendered
Beltran. Beltran’s brother, Sherman, brought the bolo
about 3 palms in length.
4. Dr. Lucero testified that she conducted the post mortem
examination, and said that the body was almost
decapitated, had 7 stab wounds, and that the cause of
death was “massive blood loss secondary to multiple
hacking wound.”
5. The victim’s sister (Normita) said that Beltran had a
motive to kill Norman because they had a fight 3 days
prior to the incident (but it was settled). She claims
damages amounting to P61k + Norma’s monthly income of
P6k.
 Defense presented 2 witnesses, Beltran and a certain Dr.
Briones. In summary, Beltran says he hacked the victim in
self-defense and the doctor says he treated Beltran the day
after the incident for a forehead wound.
1. Beltran says he was with his mother inside their house
when the victim shouted challenging him to a fight. The
victim was accompanied by unidentified persons. The
victim slapped the back of his head and was carrying an
ice pick. The victim was about to enter the house and
that’s when he hacked the victim with a bolo. He
dropped the bolo so the victim tried to stab him but he
evaded so he onlu got a laceration on the forehead. He
gained control and hacked the victim 4 consecutive
times, mostly on the head. He fled and went to his
brother’s house and hid the bolo there. He was forced
to kill the victim because the victim insulted him and
his mother. Also, 3 days prior to the incident, the
victim mauled him near a sari-sari store. Says the
victim was taller than him.
 2. Dr. Briones says he treated Beltran for a lacerated
wound on the forehead, possibly caused by a knife and
that it was already on the healing stage.
 RTC: Beltran is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murder.
 CA affirmed.

ISSUE:
1. W/N the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation
was present in the case (NO)
2. W/N the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was
present in the case (NO)
3. W/N self-defense was present in this case (NO)
4. W/N there was treachery (YES)

RULING: Decision of the CA is affirmed with modifications

(modified the amount of damages).

RATIO:

SC disagrees with the mitigating circumstance of sufficient

provocation. Its elements:
1. That the provocation or threat must be sufficient or
proportionate to the crime committed and adequate to arouse
one to its commission;
2. That the provocation or threat must originate from the
offended party;
3. That the provocation must be immediate to the commission of
the crime by the person provoked.

 The victim did not provoke Beltran. There was no argument or

physical struggle before the hacking happened. The victim
was innocently walking down the street when all of a sudden
Beltran started hacking him in rapid succession.
 Also, the alleged altercation (the sari sari store incident)
happened much earlier (s).
 More importantly, this ordinary mitigating circumstance
cannot offset the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
treachery.

--- not in relevant to topic follows----

SC disagrees with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary

surrender
 Essential elements of voluntary surrender: (1) that the
offender had not been actually arrested or apprehended; (2)
that the surrender was voluntary and spontaneous; and (3)
 that the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority or his agent.
 Beltran was already apprehended by the barangay officials of
Lipa City just before he was turned over to the police by a
certain Dimacuha.
 After the incident, he went to his brother in Nauan, then to
his sister in Lipa. It took him 3 days to surrender to the
police.

SC disagrees with the self-defense theory.

 The elements of self-defense: (1) Unlawful aggression
(2)Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent/repel it (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself

RE: Unlawful aggression:

 Unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack, or a
threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which
places the defendant's life in actual peril; an act
positively strong showing the intent of the aggressor and
not merely a threatening or intimidating; a sudden and
unprovoked attack of immediate and imminent kind to the
life, safety or rights of the person attacked
 The person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on
his life and limb; and the peril sought to be avoided is
imminent and actual, not merely imaginary. There must be
actual physical force or actual use of weapon.
 Here there was none. The victim was just walking and not
provoking Beltran. He even continued hacking even after the
victim had already fallen.
 Even accepting the defense’s version, the conclusion would
be the same. Mere slapping of one's head does not place a
person's life in serious danger such that it compels him to
use a bolo and hack the offender. As to the ice pick,
Beltran had less harmful means to avoid it such as locking
himself inside the house or calling others for help.

RE: Reasonable necessity of the means employed

 The reasonableness of the means employed may take into
account the weapons, the physical condition of the parties
and other circumstances showing that there is a rational
equivalence between the means of attack and the defense.
 Repeatedly hacking the victim on his head and neck was not a
reasonable and necessary means of repelling the aggression
allegedly initiated by the victim. In fact, no convincing
 evidence was presented to show that the victim had an ice
pick.
 Granting arguendo that the victim had an ice pick, the
repeated hackings were not necessary since he can overpower
by a single blow on non-vital portion/s of the body
 Even Beltran himself testified that he hacked the victim
even when the victim was already on the ground.
 The 1st witness’ testimony was corroborated by the 2nd
witness. The positive identification deserves full faith and
credence.
 Alleged inconsistencies between the testimony in open court
and sworn statement are not fatal defect to justify a
reversal of judgment of conviction. 1st witness was candid,
straightforward, and credible.

SC says treachery was present.

 Essential elements: (1) The employment of means, methods or
manner of execution that would insure the offender's safety
from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party,
who has, thus no opportunity for self-defense or
retaliation; and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of such
means, methods or manner of execution. AND it must always be
alleged in the info.
 Beltran waited in the dark, holding a bolo; the victim was
alone and unarmed; Beltran followed him surreptitiously;
Beltran took advantage of the stunned and hapless victim by
swiftly attacking with a bolo; when the victim tried to run,
Beltran hacked him again

VOTING: Panganiban, C.J., Chairperson, Ynares-Santiago, Austria-

Martinez, Callejo, Sr., J.J., concur.