On August 21, 2004, the accused-appellant had a drinking spree in Leyte with his two brothers. As he was about to go out of the kitchen door, the accused-appellant saw his father Apolinario standing at the doorway with a long bolo. Apolinario appeared to be drunk. An argument ensued between them.
The accused-appellant first remarked: “Father, what are the words that you uttered?” to which Apolinario responded, “It is better if one of us will perish.” Apolinario then instantaneously hacked the accused-appellant with a long bolo hitting him twice on the head for which he sustained a 5-centimeter long and scalp-deep incised wound with fracture of the underlying bone and another 5-cm long incised wound on the frontal right portion of his head.
The accused-appellant then held Apolinario’s hands, grabbed the bolo and used the same to hack the latter several times, the count of which escaped the accused-appellant’s consciousness as he was already dizzy. Apolinario perished at the crime scene.
The RTC held that when the accused-appellant hacked and killed Apolinario, the unlawful aggression which the latter initially perpetrated has already ceased because he has already ran away for 20 m. Hence, accused-appellant’s act was not self-defense but rather one of retaliation which, in turn, props up the conclusion that he intentionally killed his father. The RTC held the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Parricide penalized under Art. 246 of the Revised Penal Code and considering the presence of one (1) mitigating circumstance without any aggravating to offset it.
Whether or not accused-appellant is guilt oy parricide with one mitigating circumstance of self-defense.
Yes, the crime committed by Antero Gamez is Parricide.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.22 Here, it is an undisputed fact that Apolinario was the accused-appellant’s father.
When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him; while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused.
In fine, there is no justifiable cause exempting the accused-appellant from criminal liability and the courts a quo were correct in convicting him for parricide.
Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal, the crime of parricide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.1âwphi1 It must be noted that the declaration of the RTC in its Judgment dated May 9, 2006 on the presence of a mitigating circumstance is not supported by any allegation or evidence on record. Nonetheless, in view of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 934623 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty, the courts a quo correctly sentenced the accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua.