People v. Castillo, Jr.

Facts:

Domingo Castillo, Jr. (Boyet) and his father Domingo Castillo, Sr. (Domingo) were in the D&G Restaurant in Norzagaray, Bulacan, drinking beer. After 2 hours of drinking, a group of noisy customers arrived. Domingo knew about his son’s propensity to get into fights so he asked Boyet to go home with him. Boyet drove to the direction of their home in Angat, Bulacan. An argument ensued between the Boyet and his father who were both a bit drunk already because the former kept insisting that he should or could go back to the restaurant while the latter prevented him from doing so. Boyet abrupty stopped the pick up upon nearing their house and the victim alighted therefrom. Holding a bottle of beer in his right hand, the victim raised both of his hands, stood in front of the pick-up and said, sige kung gusto mo sagasaan mo ako, hindi ka makakaalis (go ahead, run over me if you want to leave). Boyet slowly drove the pick-up forward threatening to run over the victim. His father exclaimed, papatayin mo ba ako? (are you going to kill me?). Boyet backed-up almost hitting an owner type jeep parked at the side of the road and on board which were 4 people conversing with each other, including prosecution eyewitness, Ma. Cecilia Mariano. Then at high speed, Boyet drove the pick-up forward hitting the victim in the process. Not satisfied with what he had done, the appellant put the vehicle in reverse thereby running over the victim a second time. The appellant then alighted from the vehicle and walked towards their house.

Arthur Agaran saw the incident and brought the victim to Dolorosa Hospital at Norzagaray where he died.

Boyet passed off the death of his father as an accident. A suspicion of foul play surfaced when his sister from the US, Leslie C. Padilla, was given different versions of his death. the NBI made a formal investigation into the matter. She filed an information alleging parricide against her brother.

RTC found Boyet guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.

The prosecution has successfully established the elements of parricide: (1) the death of the deceased; (2) that he or she was killed by the accused; and (3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.

The records are bereft of any evidence that the appellant had tried to avoid hitting the victim who positioned himself in front of the pick-up. On the contrary, Marianos testimony is to the effect that prior to actually hitting the victim, the appellant was intimidating him by moving the pick-up forward, thus prompting the victim to exclaim, papatayin mo ba ako?. Worse, the appellant backed-up to gain momentum, then accelerated at a very fast speed knowing fully well that the vehicle would definitely hit the victim who was still standing in front of the same.

A man who had not intended to harm his own father would not walk but more likely run in search of help. Aware of the fact that his fathers life is precariously hanging in the balance, the normal reaction of a child is to waste no time in trying to save his life. The appellant, on the other hand, did not even lift a finger to help his own father whose life he had so brutally taken away. It was Agaran and the other workers who, on their own accord, brought the victim to the hospital. In the light of the foregoing circumstances, we therefore find it difficult to believe that the appellant did not act with malice. Worth reiterating here is the rule that evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself- such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.

Ironically, it is the appellant’s testimony that finally clinches his conviction. His testimony reveals that a certain degree of enmity and resentment characterized his relationship with his parents. The appellant was the only son of well to do parents. He had never held a days job in his entire life, and although already a family man himself, he continued to rely solely on his parents support. That he was a little spoiled is beyond doubt. The appellant admitted that during the previous years, he and his parents had some differences. As a matter of fact, several days prior to the incident, his father who wanted him to look for a job had a heart to heart talk with him, and asked him, ganito ka na lang ba? (will you never change?). Finally, it was the appellant himself who told the court that the incident was preceded by an argument between him and his father who was determined to prevent him from returning to the restaurant. But what exactly motivated the appellant to commit so heinous a crime continues to be beyond the comprehension of this court. 

No award of actual damages. The appellant should be made to pay the other heirs of the victim the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) by way of moral damages.