FACTS:
Santiago and Armando Arasula, and the two accused were attending a birthday party. When Santiago was already home he heard his brother shout. He ran towards his brother and saw de Jesus and Morales still grabbing him with a small bolo. He ordered the two to stop, they ran away and, upon reaching Armando, he found out that he was already dead.
De Jesus admitted the killing but claimed it as a self-defense. The trial court declared de Jesus and Morales guilty of murder. The accused appeal to the CA, argued that, assuming arguendo that they committed the act of killing Armando Arasula, the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of superior strength. CA denied and dismissed the appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present in this case.
RULING:
Yes. SC held that the trial court was correct in convicting the accused-appellants of the crime of murder attended by aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
To take advantage of
superior strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the person attacked. As testified by Santiago
Arasula, the lone eyewitness, the two accused were stabbing his brother, who was
unarmed and intoxicated. It is clear, therefore, that Armando was in no
position to defend himself from two armed assailants, who, as Santiago
testified, were armed with small bolos. While it is true that superiority
in number does not per se mean
superiority in strength, accused-appellants in this case did not only enjoy
superiority in number, but were armed with weapons, while the victim had no
means with which to defend himself. Accused-appellants took advantage of their
number and weapons, as well as the condition of the victim, to commit the
crime.
