G.R. No.

138453 May 29, 2002 Upon witnessing appellant's attack on his mother, Lorenzo immediately left their
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, house and ran to his grandmother's house where he reported the
vs. incident.1âwphi1.nêt
MELECIO ROBIÑOS y DOMINGO, appellant. "3. At around eight o'clock in the morning of the same day, Benjamin Bueno, the
PANGANIBAN, J.: brother of the victim Lorenza Robiños, was at the house of his mother Remedios
Where the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties, as in the present Bueno at Barangay San Isidro. Benjamin, a resident of Barangay Mabilang in Paniqui,
case for parricide with unintentional abortion, the lesser one shall be applied in the absence Tarlac, went to his mother's house for the purpose of informing his relatives that
of any aggravating circumstances. Hence, the imposable penalty here is reclusion perpetua, on the evening of March 24, 1995, appellant had killed his uncle, Alejandro Robiños,
not death. at Barangay Mabilang. However while Benjamin was at his mother's house, he
The Case received the more distressing news that his own sister Lorenza had been killed by
For automatic review by this Court is the April 16, 1999 Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court appellant.
(RTC) of Camiling, Tarlac (Branch 68), in Criminal Case No. 95-45, finding Melecio Robiños2 y "4. Upon learning of the attack on his sister, Benjamin did not go to her house
Domingo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of parricide with because he was afraid of what appellant might do. From his mother's house, which
unintentional abortion and sentencing him to death. The decretal portion of the Decision was about 150 meters away from his sister's home, Benjamin saw appellant who
reads as follows: shouted at him, 'It's good you would see how your sister died.'
"WHEREFORE, finding accused Melecio Robiños guilty beyond reasonable doubt of "5. Benjamin sought the help of Barangay Captain Virgilio Valdez who called the
the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion, this Court hereby police station at Camiling, Tarlac. SPO1 Herbert Lugo and SPO3 Tirso Martin,
renders judgment sentencing him to suffer the penalty of DEATH by lethal injection. together with the other members of the PNP Alert Team at Camiling, Tarlac,
He is also ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim; immediately went to Barangay San Isidro. The police, together with Benjamin
and P22,800.00 s actual damages."3 Bueno and some barangay officials and barangay folk, proceeded to the scene of
In an Information dated May 31, 1995,4 appellant was accused of killing his pregnant wife the crime where they saw blood dripping from the house of appellant and Lorenza.
and the fetus inside her. It reads thus: The police told appellant to come out of the house. When appellant failed to come
"That on or about March 25, 1995 at around 7:00 a.m. in Brgy. San Isidro, out, the police, with the help of barangay officials, detached the bamboo wall from
Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction the part of the house where blood was dripping. The removal of the wall exposed
of this Honorable Court, the said accused Melecio Robinos, did then and there that section of the house where SPO1 Lugo saw appellant embracing [his] wife.
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab by means of a bladed knife 8 inches long, "6. Appellant and Lorenza were lying on the floor. Appellant, who was lying on his
his legitimate wife Lorenza Robinos, who was, then six (6) months pregnant causing side and holding a bloodstained double-bladed knife with his right hand, was
the instantaneous death of said Lorenza Robinos, and the fetus inside her womb."5 embracing his wife. He was uttering the words, 'I will kill myself, I will kill myself.'
When arraigned on July 27, 1995, appellant, with the assistance of his counsel,6 pleaded not Lorenza, who was lying on her back and facing upward, was no longer breathing.
guilty.7 After due trial, the RTC convicted him. She appeared to be dead.
The Facts "7. The police and the barangay officials went up the stairs of the house and pulled
Version of the Prosecution appellant away from Lorenza's body. Appellant dropped the knife which was taken
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) narrates the prosecution's version of how appellant by SPO3 Martin. Appellant tried to resist the people who held him but was
assaulted his pregnant wife, culminating in a brutal bloodbath, as follows: overpowered. The police, with the help of the barangay officials present, tied his
"1. On March 25, 1995, at around seven o'clock in the morning, fifteen-year old hands and feet with a plastic rope. However, before he was pulled away from the
Lorenzo Robiños was in his parents' house at Barangay San Isibro in Camiling, Tarlac. body of his wife and restrained by the police, appellant admitted to Rolando Valdez,
While Lorenzo was cooking, he heard his parents, appellant Melecio Robiños and a neighbor of his and a barangay kagawad, that he had killed his wife, showing him
the victim Lorenza Robiños, who were at the sala, quarrelling. the bloodstained knife.
"2. Lorenzo heard his mother tell appellant, 'Why did you come home, why don't "8. Upon examining Lorenza, SPO1 Lugo found that she was already dead. She was
you just leave?' After hearing what his mother said, Lorenzo, at a distance of about pale and not breathing. The police thus solicited the services of a funeral parlor to
five meters, saw appellant, with a double-bladed knife, stab Lorenza on the right take Lorenza's body for autopsy. Appellant was brought to the police station at
shoulder. Blood gushed from where Lorenza was hit and she fell down on the floor.
 Camiling, Tarlac. However, he had to be taken to the Camiling District Hospital for He did not know that he was charged for the crime of parricide with unintentional
the treatment of a stab wound. abortion. He could not remember when he was informed by his children that he
"9. After the incident, Senior Inspector Reynaldo B. Orante, the Chief of Police at killed his wife. He could not believe that he killed his wife."9
Camiling, Tarlac, prepared a Special Report which disclosed that: In view of the penalty imposed by the trial court, this case was automatically elevated to this
'The victim Lorenza Robiños was six (6) months pregnant. She suffered 41 Court for review.10
stab wounds on the different parts of her body. The Issues
'That suspect (Melecio Robiños) was under the influence of liquor/drunk Appellant submits for our consideration the following assignment of errors:
[who] came home and argued/quarreled with his wife, until the suspect "I
got irked, [drew] a double knife and delivered forty one (41) stab blows. The court a quo erred in not giving probative weight to the testimony and
'Suspect also stabbed his own body and [was] brought to the Provincial psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Maria Mercedita Mendoza finding the accused-
Hospital. appellant to be suffering from psychosis or insanity classified under schizophrenia,
'Recovered from the crime scene is a double blade sharp knife about eight paranoid type.
(8) inches long including handle.' "II
"10. During the trial of the case, the prosecution was not able to present the doctor The court a quo erred in disregarding accused-appellant's defense of insanity."11
who conducted the autopsy on Lorenza Robiños' body. Nor, was the autopsy report The Court's Ruling
presented as evidence."8 The appeal is partly meritorious.
Version of the Defense Main Issue
Appellant does not refute the factual allegations of the prosecution that he indeed killed his Insanity as an Exempting Circumstance
wife, but seeks exoneration from criminal liability by interposing the defense of insanity as At the outset, it bears noting that appellant did not present any evidence to contravene the
follows: allegation that he killed his wife. Clear and undisputed are the RTC findings on the identity
"Pleading exculpation, herein accused-appellant interposed insanity. The defense of the culprit and the commission of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional
presented the testimonies of the following: abortion. Appellant, however, interposes the defense of insanity to absolve himself of
"FEDERICO ROBIÑOS, 19 years old son of Melecio Robiños, testified that his parents criminal liability.
had occasional quarrels[. B]efore March 23, 1995, his father told him that he had Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely deprived of reason or discernment
seen a person went [sic] inside their house and who wanted to kill him. On March and freedom of will at the time of the commission of the crime.12 A defendant in a criminal
23, 1995, he heard his father told the same thing to his mother and because of this, case who relies on the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing the fact
his parents quarreled and exchanged heated words. of insanity at the very moment when the crime was committed.13 Only when there is a
"LOURDES FAJARDO, nurse of the Tarlac Penal Colony, testified that she came to complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the
know Melecio Robiños only in May to June 1996. Every time she visited him in his exempting circumstance of insanity be considered.14
cell, accused isolated himself, 'laging nakatingin sa malayo', rarely talked, just stared The presumption of law always lies in favor of sanity and, in the absence of proof to the
at her and murmured alone. contrary, every person is presumed to be of sound mind.15 Accordingly, one who pleads the
"BENEDICT REBOLLOS, a detention prisoner of the Tarlac Penal Colony, testified that exempting circumstance of insanity has the burden of proving it. 16 Failing this, one will be
he and the accused were seeing each other everyday from 6:00 o'clock in the presumed to be sane when the crime was committed.
morning up to 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon. He had observed that accused A perusal of the records of the case reveals that appellant's claim of insanity is
sometime[s] refused to respond in the counting of prisoners. Sometimes, he stayed unsubstantiated and wanting in material proof. Testimonies from both prosecution and
in his cell even if they were required to fall in line in the plaza of the penal colony. defense witnesses show no substantial evidence that appellant was completely deprived of
"DOMINGO FRANCISCO, another detention prisoner of the Tarlac Penal Colony, reason or discernment when he perpetrated the brutal killing of his wife.
testified that as the accused's inmate, he had occasion to meet and mingle with the As can be gleaned from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, a domestic altercation
latter. Accused sometimes was lying down, sitting, looking, or staring on space and preceded the fatal stabbing. Thus, it cannot be said that appellant attacked his wife for no
without companion, laughing and sometimes crying. reason at all and without knowledge of the nature of his action. To be sure, his act of stabbing
"MELECIO ROBIÑOS, herein accused-appellant, testified that on March 25, 1995, he her was a deliberate and conscious reaction to the insulting remarks she had hurled at him
was in their house and there was no unusual incident that happened on that date.
as attested to by their 15-year-old son Lorenzo Robiños. We reproduce Lorenzo's testimony appellant when the latter confessed to the former and to the police officers, and even
in part as follows: showed to them the knife used to stab the victim. Valdez's testimony proceeded as follows:
"Q: Before your father Melecio Robiños stabbed your mother, do you recall if "Q: And what did you discover when you went there at the house of Melecio
they talked to one and the other? Robiños?
A: Yes, sir. A: When we arrived at the house of Melecio Robiños, it was closed. We waited
ATTY. IBARRA: for the police officers to arrive and when they arrived, that was the time that we
Q: Did you hear what they talked about? started going around the house and when we saw blood, some of our companions
A: Yes, sir. removed the walling of the house and at that time, we saw the wife of Melecio
Q: What did you hear? Robiños lying down as if at that moment, the wife of Melecio Robiños was already
A: 'Why did you come home, why don't you just leave?', Sir. dead, Sir.
COURT: Q: When you were able to remove this walling, what did you do?
In other words, you better go away, you should have not come back home. A: We talked to Melecio Robiños, Sir.
ATTY. IBARRA: xxx xxx xxx
Q: After you mother uttered those words, what did your father do? Q: What was he doing when you talked to him?
A: That was the time that he stabbed my mother, sir."17 A: When we saw them they were both lying down and when we got near, he
Furthermore, appellant was obviously aware of what he had done to his wife. He was even said he killed his wife and showing the weapon he used, sir.
bragging to her brother, Benjamin Bueno, how he had just killed her. Bueno testified thus: Q: What is that weapon?
"ATTY. JOAQUIN: A: Double bladed weapon, Sir.
Q: Now, from the house of your mother, can you see the house of your sister? COURT:
A: Yes, sir. What is that, knife?
Q: When you arrived at the house of your mother, Lorenzo Robiños was already A: It's a double bladed knife, sir.
there in the house of your mother, is that right, Mr. Witness? xxx xxx xxx
A: Yes, sir. COURT:
Q: And he was the one who informed you about your sister already dead? He admitted to you that he killed his wife?
A: Yes, Sir. A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you go near the house of your sister upon learning that she was already Q: How did he say that, tell the court exactly how he tell you that, in tagalog,
dead? ilocano or what?
A: No, Sir. A: What I remember Sir he said, 'Pinatay ko ni baket ko' meaning 'I killed my
ATTY. JOAQUIN: wife,' Sir."19
Q: Why? Clearly, the assault of appellant on his wife was not undertaken without his awareness of the
A: My brother-in-law was still amok, Sir. atrocity of his act.
COURT: Similarly, an evaluation of the testimonies of the defense witnesses hardly supports his claim
Q: Why do you know that he was amok? of insanity. The bulk of the defense evidence points to his allegedly unsound mental
A: Yes, sir, because he even shouted at me, sir. condition after the commission of the crime. Except for appellant's 19-year-old son Federico
Q: How? Robiños,20 all the other defense witnesses testified on the supposed manifestations of his
A: It's good you would see how your sister died, Sir."18 insanity after he had already been detained in prison.
Finally, the fact that appellant admitted to responding law enforcers how he had just killed To repeat, insanity must have existed at the time of the commission of the offense, or the
his wife may have been a manifestation of repentance and remorse -- a natural sentiment accused must have been deranged even prior thereto. Otherwise he would still be criminally
of a husband who had realized the wrongfulness of his act. His behavior at the time of the responsible.21 Verily, his alleged insanity should have pertained to the period prior to or at
killing and immediately thereafter is inconsistent with his claim that he had no knowledge of the precise moment when the criminal act was committed, not at anytime thereafter.
what he had just done. Barangay Kagawad Rolando Valdez validated the clarity of mind of In People v. Villa,22 this Court incisively ratiocinated on the matter as follows:
 "It could be that accused-appellant was insane at the time he was examined at the immediately before, during and immediately after the commission of the offense.
center. But, in all probability, such insanity was contracted during the period of his Her finding is conjectural, inconclusive. She did not conduct background
detention pending trial. He was without contact with friends and relatives most of examination of the mental condition of the accused before the incident by
the time. He was troubled by his conscience, the realization of the gravity of the interviewing persons who had the opportunity to associate with him."29
offenses and the thought of a bleak future for him. The confluence of these Hence, appellant who invoked insanity should have proven that he had already been
circumstances may have conspired to disrupt his mental equilibrium. But, it must completely deprived of reason when he killed the victim.30 Verily, the evidence proffered by
be stressed, that an inquiry into the mental state of accused-appellant should relate the defense did not indicate that he had been completely deprived of intelligence or
to the period immediately before or at the precise moment of doing the act which is freedom of will when he stabbed his wife to death. Insanity is a defense in the nature of a
the subject of the inquiry, and his mental condition after that crucial period or during confession or avoidance and, as such, clear and convincing proof is required to establish its
the trial is inconsequential for purposes of determining his criminal liability. In fine, existence.31Indubitably, the defense failed to meet the quantum of proof required to
this Court needs more concrete evidence on the mental condition of the person overthrow the presumption of sanity.1âwphi1.nêt
alleged to be insane at the time of the perpetration of the crimes in order that the Second Issue:
exempting circumstance of insanity may be appreciated in his favor. x x x."23 (Italics Proper Penalty
supplied) Although the RTC correctly rejected the defense of insanity, it nonetheless erred in imposing
Indeed, when insanity is alleged as a ground for exemption from criminal responsibility, the the death penalty on appellant. It imposed the maximum penalty without considering the
evidence must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment presence or the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The imposition of the
of its execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime, capital penalty was not only baseless, but contrary to the rules on the application of penalties
the accused cannot be acquitted.24 as provided in the Revised Penal Code. Even the Office of the Solicitor General concedes this
The testimony of Dr. Maria Mercedita Mendoza, the psychiatrist who conducted an error in the imposition of the death penalty.32
examination of the mental condition of appellant, does not provide much help in Since appellant was convicted of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion,
determining his state of mind at the time of the killing. It must be noted that she examined the penalty to be imposed on him should be that for the graver offense which is parricide.
him only on September 11, 1995, or six months after the commission of the This is in accordance with the mandate of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which states:
crime.25Moreover, she was not able to make a background study on the history of his mental "When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, x x x, the penalty for
condition prior to the killing because of the failure of a certain social worker to gather data the most serious crime shall be imposed, x x x."
on the matter.26 The law on parricide, as amended by RA 7659, is punishable with reclusion perpetua to
Although Dr. Mendoza testified that it was possible that the accused had already been death. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties,
suffering from psychosis at the time of the commission of the crime,27 she likewise admitted the court is mandated to impose one or the other, depending on the presence or the
that her conclusion was not definite and was merely an opinion.28 As correctly observed by absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.33 The rules with respect to the
the trial court, her declarations were merely conjectural and inconclusive to support a application of a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties are prescribed by Article 63 of
positive finding of insanity. According to the RTC: the Revised Penal Code, the pertinent portion of which is quoted as follows:
"The testimony of Dr. Maria Mercidita Mendoza, who examined accused at the "In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible
National Center for Mental Health, Mandaluyong City, that at the time of penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
examination accused Melecio Robiños was still mentally ill; that accused was xxx xxx xxx
experiencing hallucination and suffering from insanity and it is possible that the 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
sickness have occurred eight (8) to nine (9) months before examination; and in her commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied." (Italics supplied)
opinion accused was suffering from delusion and hallucination. And her opinion Hence, when the penalty provided by law is either of two indivisible penalties and there are
that at the time accused stabbed himself, he was not in his lucid interval, is merely neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lower penalty shall be
her conclusion. xxx xxx xxx Aside from being her opinion, she conducted the mental, imposed.34 Considering that neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances were
physical and neurological examinations on the accused seven (7) months after the established in this case, the imposable penalty should only be reclusion perpetua.35
commission of the offense. That span of seven (7) months has given accused an Indeed, because the crime of parricide is not a capital crime per se, it is not always punishable
opportunity to contrive and feign mental derangement. Dr. Mendoza had no with death. The law provides for the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death -- two
opportunity to observed (sic) and assessed (sic) the behavior of the accused
indivisible penalties, the application of either one of which depends on the presence or the [G.R. No. 150647. September 29, 2004]
absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.36 ROWENO POMOY, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Camiling, Tarlac (Branch 68) in DECISION
Criminal Case No. 95-45 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty PANGANIBAN, J.:
is REDUCED to reclusion perpetua. Consistent with current jurisprudence, appellant shall pay Well-established is the principle that the factual findings of the trial court, when
the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P22,800 as actual affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the highest court of the land. However,
damages, which were duly proven. No pronouncement as to costs. when facts are misinterpreted and the innocence of the accused depends on a proper
ORDERED. appreciation of the factual conclusions, the Supreme Court may conduct a review thereof. In
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Ynares- the present case, a careful reexamination convinces this Court that an accident caused the
Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur. victims death. At the very least, the testimonies of the credible witnesses create a
reasonable doubt on appellants guilt. Hence, the Court must uphold the constitutional
presumption of innocence.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set
aside the February 28, 2001 Decision[2] and the October 30, 2001 Resolution[3] of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CAGR CR No. 18759. The CA affirmed, with modifications, the March 8,
1995 judgment[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)[5] of Iloilo City (Branch 25) in Criminal Case
No. 36921, finding Roweno Pomoy guilty of the crime of homicide. The assailed CA Decision
disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, MODIFIED as to penalty in the sense that the [Petitioner]
ROWENO POMOY is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years, four
(4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years
eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, the
decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.[6]
The challenged CA Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner was charged in an Information worded thus:
That on or about the 4th day of January 1990, in the Municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
armed with his .45 service pistol, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, and
without any justifiable cause or motive, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack and shoot one TOMAS BALBOA with the service pistol he was then
provided, inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body, which
directly caused the death of said victim thereafter.[7]
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presented respondents version of the facts as
follows:
Tomas Balboa was a master teacher of the Concepcion College of Science and Fisheries
in Concepcion, Iloilo.
On January 4, 1990, about 7:30 in the morning, some policemen arrived at
the Concepcion College to arrest Balboa, allegedly in connection with a robbery which took
place in the municipality in December 1989. With the arrest effected, Balboa and the
policemen passed by the Concepcion Elementary School where his wife, Jessica, was in a CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage, massive secondary to gunshot wounds on chest and
get-together party with other School Administrators. When his wife asked him, Why will you abdomen.
be arrested? [H]e answered [Even I] do not know why I am arrested. That is why I am even REMARKS: Body previously embalmed and autopsied.
going there in order to find out the reason for my arrest. Dr. Jaboneta testified that the two (2) wounds he found on x x x Balboas body were gunshot
Balboa was taken to the Headquarters of the already defunct 321 st Philippine Constabulary wounds. The entrance of [W]ound No. 1 was to the left side of the chest about the left nipple
Company at Camp Jalandoni, Sara, Iloilo. He was detained in the jail thereat, along with and exited to the right side of the back. Its trajectory was backwards then downwards from
Edgar Samudio, another suspect in the robbery case. left to right. As to the possible position of the assailant, Dr. Jaboneta opined that the nozzle
Later that day, about a little past 2 oclock in the afternoon, petitioner, who is a police of the gun was probably in front of the victim and was more to the left side, and the gun
sergeant, went near the door of the jail where Balboa was detained and directed the latter must have been a little bit higher than the entrance wound. Wound No. 2 was located
to come out, purportedly for tactical interrogation at the investigation room, as he told immediately below the arch of the ribs, left side. Its direction was backwards and laterally
Balboa: Lets go to the investigation room. The investigation room is at the main building of upwards. Dr. Jaboneta estimated that when it was inflicted, the assailant must have pointed
the compound where the jail is located. The jail guard on duty, Nicostrado Estepar, opened the guns nozzle to the right side front of the victim. The distance between the entrance
the jail door and walked towards the investigation room. points of wounds No. 1 and No. 2 was found to be about 16.0 centimeters.[8]
At that time, petitioner had a gun, a .45 caliber pistol, tucked in a holster which was hanging Version of the Defense
by the side of his belt. The gun was fully embedded in its holster, with only the handle of the The Petition adopted the narration of facts in the assailed CA Decision, which in turn
gun protruding from the holster. culled them from the trial court. The RTC summarized the testimonies of Defense Witnesses
When petitioner and Balboa reached the main building and were near the investigation Erna Basa, the lone eyewitness to the incident; Eden Legaspi; Dr. Salvador Mallo Jr.; and
room, two (2) gunshots were heard. When the source of the shots was verified, petitioner petitioner himself, as follows:
was seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol, facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood, Erna Basa:
about two (2) feet away. When the Commanding Officer of the Headquarters arrived, he x x x [O]n January 4, 1990, she was working in their office in the camp up to the afternoon;
disarmed petitioner and directed that Balboa be brought to the hospital. Dr. Palma (first at about past 2 oclock that afternoon while working on the backlogs, she heard some noise
name not provided) happened to be at the crime scene as he was visiting his brother in the and exchange of words which were not clear, but it seemed there was growing trouble; she
Philippine Constabulary. When Dr. Palma examined Balboa, he (Dr. Palma) said that it was opened the door to verify and saw Roweno Pomoy and Tomas Balboa grappling for the
unnecessary to bring Balboa to the hospital for he was dead. possession of the gun; she was inside the room and one meter away from the door; Pomoy
Upon the request of Mrs. Jessica Balboa, the wife of the deceased, Dr. Ricardo Jabonete, the and Balboa while grappling were two to three meters away from the door; the grappling
medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, Region VI, Iloilo City, conducted happened so fast and the gun of Pomoy was suddenly pulled out from its holster and then
an autopsy on the remains of Tomas Balboa. The following were his findings: there was explosion; she was not certain who pulled the gun. x x x.
Pallor, integumens and nailbeds. Eden Legaspi:
Wound, gunshot: (1) ENTRANCE, downwards and medially, edges, modified by sutures, x x x [A]s early as 1:30 oclock in the afternoon of January 4, 1990 she was inside the
surrounded by abrasion collar, 0.6 cm. In its chest, left side, 10.0 cms. from anterior midline, investigation room of the PC at Camp Jalandoni, Sara, Iloilo; at about 2 oclock that same
121.0 cms. From left heel, directed medially backwards from left to right, penetrating chest afternoon while there inside, she heard a commotion outside and she remained seated on
wall thru 5th intercostals space into thoracic cavity, perforating thru and thru, upper lobe, the bench; when the commotion started they were seated on the bench and after the
left lung, lacerating left ventricular wall causing punched out fracture, 8 ththoracic vertebra commotion that woman soldier (referring to Erna Basa) stood up and opened the door and
and make an EXIT, stallate in shape, 1.0 x 0.8 cm. Edges, modified by sutures, back, right side, she saw two persons grappling for the possession of a gun and immediately two successive
8.0 cms. From posterior midline, 117.0 cms. From right heel (2) ENTRANCE, ovaloid, oriented shots rang out; she did not leave the place where she was seated but she just stood up; after
medially downwards, edges sutured, 0.7 cm. on its widest portion, at infero-medial border, the shots, one of the two men fall down x x x.
hypochondriac region, left side, 4.0 cms. From anterior midline, 105.0 cms. From left heel, Accused-petitioner Roweno Pomoy:
directed backwards, laterally wall into penetrating abdominal cavity, perforating thru and He is 30 years old and a PNP member of the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company then
thru, stomach, head of the pancreas and mesentery, make an exit, ovalid, 1.0 x 0.8 cm., attached to the defunct 321st PC Company; he was one of the investigators of their outfit;
oriented medially upwards, edges, sutured, back, left side, level of 9 th intercostal space, 4.5 about 2 oclock or past that time of January 4, 1990 he got Tomas Balboa from their stockade
cms. From posterior midline, 110.0 cms. From left heel. x x x. for tactical interrogation; as he was already holding the door knob of their investigation room
and about to open and enter it, all of a sudden he saw Tomas Balboa approach him and take
hold or grab the handle of his gun; Tomas Balboa was a suspect in a robbery case who was (Pomoy) was not in his right sense; when his commanding officer came some five to ten
apprehended by the police of Concepcion and then turned over to them (PC) and placed in minutes later and took away his gun he did not tell him anything.
their stockade; he asked the sergeant of the guard to let Balboa out of the stockade for Dr. Salvador Mallo Jr.
interrogation; from the stockade with Balboa walking with him, he had his .45 caliber pistol He is the Rural Health Physician of Sara who conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of Tomas
placed in his holster attached to his belt on his waist; then as he was holding the doorknob Balboa that afternoon of January 4, 1990; in his autopsy findings respecting which he made
with his right hand to open the door, the victim, who was two meters away from him, an autopsy report he said he found two entrance wounds on the victim, the first on the left
suddenly approached him and grabbed his gun, but all of a sudden he held the handle of his chest with trajectory medially downward, while the second one is on the left side of the
gun with his left hand; he released his right hand from the doorknob and, with that right stomach with trajectory somewhat going upward; at the same time of his examination he
hand, he held the handle of his gun; Tomas Balboa was not able to take actual hold of the saw this victim to be wearing a light-colored T-shirt and a jacket; other than the T-shirt worn
gun because of his efforts in preventing him (Balboa) from holding the handle of his gun; he by the victim, he did not see or find any powder burns and marks and that those dotted
used his left hand to parry the move of Balboa; after he held the handle of his gun with his marks in the T-shirt were believed by him to be powder burns as they look like one; he also
right hand, in a matter of seconds, he felt somebody was holding his right hand; he and found a deformed slug in the pocket of the jacket of the victim.[9]
Balboa grappled and in two or three seconds the gun was drawn from its holster as both of Ruling of the Court of Appeals
them held the gun; more grappling followed and five seconds after the gun was taken from The CA anchored its Decision on the following factual findings: 1) the victim was not
its holster it fired, the victim was to his right side when the attempt to grab his gun began successful in his attempts to grab the gun, since petitioner had been in control of the weapon
and was still to his right when the gun was drawn from its holster until it fired, as they were when the shots were fired; 2) the gun had been locked prior to the alleged grabbing incident
still grappling or wrestling; his gun was already loaded in its chamber and cocked when he and immediately before it went off; it was petitioner who released the safety lock before he
left his house, and it was locked when it fired; during the grappling he used his left hand to deliberately fired the fatal shots; and 3) the location of the wounds found on the body of the
prevent Balboa from holding his gun, while the victim used his right hand in trying to reach deceased did not support the assertion of petitioner that there had been a grappling for the
the gun; after the gun fired, they were separated from each other and Balboa fell; he is taller gun.
than Balboa though the latter was bigger in build; he cannot say nor determine who of them To the appellate court, all the foregoing facts discredited the claim of petitioner that
was stronger; after Balboa fell, Sgt. Alag shouted saying stop that and he saw Sgt. Alag the death of Balboa resulted from an accident. Citing People v. Reyes,[10] the CA maintained
approaching; sometime after, Capt. Rolando Maclang, their commanding officer, came, got that a revolver is not prone to accidental firing if it were simply handed over to the deceased
his gun, and said that the case be investigated as to what really happened. He said that when as appellant claims because of the nature of its mechanism, unless it was already first cocked
his gun was put in its holster only its handle protrudes or comes out from it. and pressure was exerted on the trigger in the process of allegedly handing it over. If it were
Upon cross-examination, he said that Balboa was a suspect in a robbery case that happened uncocked, then considerable pressure had to be applied on the trigger to fire the revolver.
during the first week of December, 1989; he was the one who filed that case in the town of Either way, the shooting of the deceased must have been intentional because pressure on
San Dionisio and that case involves other persons who were also detained; before January the trigger was necessary to make the gun fire.[11]
4, 1990 he had also the chance to invite and interrogate Balboa but who denied any robbery Moreover, the appellate court obviously concurred with this observation of the OSG:
case; x x x [I]t was after he took his lunch that day when Capt. Maclang called him to conduct [Petitioners] theory of accident would have been easier to believe had the victim been shot
the interrogation; when he took Balboa from the stockade he did not tell him that he only once. In this case, however, [petitioner] shot the victim not only once but twice, thereby
(Balboa) was to be investigated in the investigation room which was housed in the main establishing [petitioners] determined effort to kill the victim. By any stretch of the
building which is fifty meters, more or less, from the stockade, likewise houses the imagination, even assuming without admitting that the first shot was accidental, then it
administrative office, the office of the commanding officer, officer of the operations division should not have been followed by another shot on another vital part of the body. The fact
and that of the signal division; his gun was in its holster when the victim tried to grab it (gun); that [petitioner] shot the victim two (2) times and was hit on two different and distant parts
from the time he sensed that the victim tried to grab his gun, he locked the victim; the hand of the body, inflicted from two different locations or angles, means that there was an intent
of the victim was on top of his hand and he felt the victim was attempting to get his gun; to cause the victims death, contrary to [petitioners] pretensions of the
that the entire handle of his gun was exposed when placed inside its holster; he cannot tell alleged accidental firing. It is an oft-repeated principle that the location, number and gravity
whether the victim, while struggling with him, was able to hold any portion of his gun from of the wounds inflicted on the victim have a more revealing tale of what actually happened
the tip of its barrel to the point where its hammer is located; during the incident his gun was during the incident. x x x.[12]
fully loaded and cocked; Sgt. Alag did not approach, but just viewed them and probably
reported the incident to their commanding officer; he was not able to talk to Sgt. Alag as he
 Furthermore, the CA debunked the alternative plea of self-defense. It held that V. The Court of Appeals failed to discern the real import of petitioners reaction to
petitioner had miserably failed to prove the attendance of unlawful aggression, an the incident when it stated that the dumbfounded reaction of petitioner after
indispensable element of this justifying circumstance. the incident strongly argues against his claim of accidental shooting.
While substantially affirming the factual findings of the RTC, the CA disagreed with the VI. The appellate court committed grave error when it disregarded motive or lack
conclusion of the trial court that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position of it in determining the existence of voluntariness and intent on the part of
had attended the commission of the crime. Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the RTC was petitioner to shoot at the victim when the same was put in serious doubt by
modified by the appellate court in this manner: the evidence presented.
x x x [F]or public position to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, the public official VII. The Court of Appeals was mistaken in ruling that the defense of accident and
must use his influence, prestige and ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing his self-defense are inconsistent.
purpose. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, VIII. The Court of Appeals obviously erred in the imposition of the penalties and
then there is no abuse of public position. (People vs. Joyno, 304 SCRA 655, 670). In the instant damages.[15]
case, there is no showing that the [petitioner] had a premeditated plan to kill the victim when In sum, the foregoing issues can be narrowed down to two: First, whether the shooting
the former fetched the latter from the stockade, thus, it cannot be concluded that the public of Tomas Balboa was the result of an accident; and second, whether petitioner was able to
position of the [petitioner] facilitated the commission of the crime. Therefore, the trial courts prove self-defense.
finding that the said aggravating circumstance that [petitioner] took advantage of his public The Courts Ruling
position to commit the crime cannot be sustained. Hence, there being no aggravating and The Petition is meritorious.
no mitigating circumstance proved, the maximum of the penalty shall be taken from the First Issue:
medium period of reclusion temporal, a penalty imposable for the crime of homicide. x x Accidental Shooting
x.[13] Timeless is the legal adage that the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by
Hence, this Petition.[14] the appellate court, are conclusive.[16] Both courts possess time-honored expertise in the
Issues field of fact finding.But where some facts are misinterpreted or some details overlooked, the
In his Memorandum, petitioner submitted the following issues for the Courts Supreme Court may overturn the erroneous conclusions drawn by the courts a quo. Where,
consideration: as in this case, the facts in dispute are crucial to the question of innocence or guilt of the
I. The Court of Appeals committed serious and reversible error in affirming accused, a careful factual reexamination is imperative.
petitioners conviction despite the insufficiency of the prosecutions evidence Accident is an exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code:
to convict the petitioner, in contrast to petitioners overwhelming evidence to Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. The following are exempt
support his theory/defense of accident. from criminal liability:
II. The Court of Appeals committed grave and reversible error in affirming the xxxxxxxxx
conviction of the petitioner on a manifestly mistaken inference that when the 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
gun fired, the petitioner was in full control of the handle of the gun, because accident without fault or intent of causing it.
what the testimonies of disinterested witnesses and the petitioner reveal was Exemption from criminal liability proceeds from a finding that the harm to the victim
that the gun fired while petitioner and Balboa were both holding the gun in was not due to the fault or negligence of the accused, but to circumstances that could not
forceful efforts to wrest the gun from each other. have been foreseen or controlled.[17] Thus, in determining whether an accident attended the
III. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the solicitor generals incident, courts must take into account the dual standards of lack of intent to kill and absence
observation that the fact that petitioner shot the victim twice establishes of fault or negligence. This determination inevitably brings to the fore the main question in
petitioners determined effort to kill the victim. the present case: was petitioner in control of the .45 caliber pistol at the very moment the
IV. The appellate court committed serious misapprehension of the evidence shots were fired?
presented when it ruled that the trajectory of the wounds was front-to-back Petitioner Not in Control
belying the allegation of petitioner that he and the victim were side-by-side of the Gun When It Fired
each other when the grappling ensued. The records show that, other than petitioner himself, it was Erna Basa who
witnessed the incident firsthand. Her account, narrated during cross-
 examination, detailed the events of that fateful afternoon of January 4, 1990 Q. Which hand of Sgt. Pomoy did you see holding the gun?
as follows: A. Right hand of Sgt. Pomoy.
ATTY. TEODOSIO: Q. And when you see that right hand of Sgt. Pomoy, was it holding the gun?
Q. You said that while you were inside the investigation room you heard a A. The right hand of Sgt. Pomoy was here on the gun and Sir Balboas hand was also
commotion. That commotion which you heard, did you hear any shouting as there. Both of them were holding the gun.
part of that commotion which you heard? Q. Which part of the gun was the right hand of Sgt. Pomoy holding?
A. Moderately there was shouting and their dialogue was not clear. It could not A. The handle.
be understood. Q. And was he facing Tomas Balboa when he was holding the gun with his right
Q. Did you hear any voices as part of that commotion? hand?
A. No, sir. A. At first they were not directly facing each other.
Q. From the time you entered the investigation room you did not hear any voice Q. So later, they were facing each other?
while you were inside the investigation room as part of that commotion? A. They were not directly facing each other. Their position did not remain steady as
A. There was no loud voice and their conversation could not be clarified. They they were grappling for the possession of the gun force against force.
were talking somewhat like murmuring or in a low voice but there was a sort COURT:
of trouble in their talks. Q. What was the position of the victim when the shots were fired?
COURT: A. When I saw them they were already facing each other.
Q. Was there a sort of an exchange of words in their conversation? Q. What was the distance?
A. Yes, sir. A. Very close to each other.
xxxxxxxxx Q. How close?
Q. When you opened the door, you saw Sgt. Pomoy and Mr. Balboa the deceased A. Very near each other.
in this case? Am I correct? Q. Could it be a distance of within one (1) foot?
A. Yes, sir. A. Not exactly. They were close to each other in such a manner that their bodies
Q. And when you saw Sgt. Pomoy was he holding a gun? would touch each other.
A. Not yet, the gun was still here. (Witness illustrating by pointing to her side) and Q. So the distance is less than one (1) foot when the gun fired?
I saw both of them grappling for that gun. A. One (1) foot or less when the explosions were heard.
Q. Where was the gun at that time? Q. And they were directly facing each other?
A. The gun was in its holster. (Witness illustrating by pointing to [her] side.) A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you demonstrated you were according to you saw the hands holding the COURT:
gun. It was Sgt. Pomoy who was holding the gun with his right hand? Proceed.
A. I saw two hands on the handle of the gun in its holster, the hand of Sir Balboa Q. Were you able to see how the gun was taken out from its holster?
and Sgt. Pomoy. A. While they were grappling for the possession of the gun, gradually the gun was
COURT: released from its holster and then there was an explosion.
Q. At that precise moment the gun was still in its holster? Q. And when the gun fired the gun was on Tomas Balboa?
A. When I took a look the gun was still in its holster with both hands grappling for A. I could not see towards whom the nozzle of the gun was when it fired
the possession of the gun. because they were grappling for the possession of the gun.
Q. How many hands did you see? Q. Did you see when the gun fired when they were grappling for its possession?
A. Two. A. Yes sir, I actually saw the explosion. It came from that very gun.
Q. One hand of Sgt. Pomoy and one hand is that of the victim? Q. Did you see the gun fired when it fired for two times?
A. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir.
COURT: Q. Did you see the barrel of the gun when the gun fired?
Proceed. A. I could not really conclude towards whom the barrel of the gun was pointed to
ATTY TEODOSIO: because the gun was turning.
xxxxxxxxx A. When the gun pulled out from its holster, I was not able to notice clearly
Q. Could you tell the court who was holding the gun when the gun fired? anymore whose hand was holding the gun when I saw both their hands were
A. When the gun exploded, the gun was already in the possession of Sgt. holding the gun.
Pomoy. He was the one holding the gun. Q. When you said this in [the] vernacular, Daw duha na sila nagakapot, what you
Q. After the gun went off, you saw the gun was already in the hand of Sgt. Pomoy? really mean?
A. Yes, sir. A. Both of them were holding the gun.
Q. How soon after the gun went off when you saw the gun in the hand of Sgt. Q. But Sgt. Pomoy still holding the handle of the gun?
Pomoy? A. Still both of them were holding the handle of the gun.
A. After Balboa had fallen and after they had separated themselves with each Q. With the hand of Balboa still on the top of the hand of Sgt. Pomoy as what you
other, it was then that I saw Sgt. Pomoy holding the gun. have previously said when the gun was in the holster of Sgt. Pomoy?
COURT: A. When the gun was pulled from its holster, I saw that Sgt. Pomoys right hand was
Proceed. still on the handle of the gun with the left hand of Sir Balboa over his right
ATTY. TEODOSIO: hand of Sgt. Pomoy, like this(witness illustrating by showing his right hand
Q. When the gun was taken out from its holster, Sgt. Pomoy was the one holding with her left hand over her right hand as if holding something. The thumb of
the handle of the gun? Am I correct? the left hand is somewhat over the index finger of the right hand.)
A. Both of them were holding the handle of the gun. COURT:
Q. So when the gun was still in its holster, two of them were holding the gun? Which hand of the victim was used by him when the gun was already pulled out
A. Yes sir, they were actually holding the gun, Sgt. Pomoy and Sir Balboa. form its holster and while the accused was holding the handle of the gun?
Q. It was the right hand of Sgt. Pomoy who was holding the handle of the gun as A. Left hand.
you testified? Q. So, he was still using the same left hand in holding a portion of the handle of
A. Yes, sir. the gun up to the time when the gun was pulled out from its holster?
Q. Which hand of Balboa was holding the handle of the gun? A. Yes sir, the same left hand and that of Pomoy his right hand because the left
A. Left hand. hand of Pomoy was used by him in parrying the right hand of Sir Balboa
Q. At the time Balboa was holding the handle of the gun with his left hand, was which is about to grab the handle of the gun.
he in front of Sgt. Pomoy? COURT:
A. They had a sort of having their sides towards each other. Pomoys right and Q. So in the process of grappling he was using his left hand in pushing the victim
Balboas left sides [were] towards each other. They were side by side at a away from him?
closer distance towards each other. A. Yes, sir.
xxxxxxxxx Q. What about the right hand of the victim, what was he doing with his right
Q. It was actually Sgt. Pomoy who was holding the handle of the gun during that hand?
time? A. The victim was trying to reach the gun with his right hand and Pomoy was using
A. When I looked out it was when they were grappling for the possession of the his left hand to protect the victim from reaching the gun with his right hand.
gun and the right hand of Sgt. Pomoy was holding the handle of the gun. COURT:
Q. When you saw them did you see what position of the handle of the gun was Proceed.
being held by Tomas Balboa? The rear portion of the handle of the gun or ATTY. TEODOSIO:
the portion near the trigger? Q. Did you say a while ago that Mr. Balboa was able to hold the barrel of the gun
A. When I looked at them it was the hand of Sgt. Pomoy holding the handle of the of Sgt. Pomoy?
gun with his right hand with the hand of Sir Balboa over the hand of Pomoy, A. Yes, sir.
the same hand holding the gun. Q. And that was at the time before the shots were fired?
Q. It was in that position when the gun was removed from its holster? A. Yes, he was able to hold the tip of the barrel of the gun using his right hand.
COURT:
Q. That was before the gun fired?
 A. Yes, sir.[18] Thus, the appellate courts reliance on People v. Reyes[21] was misplaced. In that
The foregoing account demonstrates that petitioner did not have control of the gun case, the Court disbelieved the accused who described how his gun had exploded while he
during the scuffle. The deceased persistently attempted to wrest the weapon from him, was simply handing it over to the victim. Here, no similar claim is being made; petitioner has
while he resolutely tried to thwart those attempts. That the hands of both petitioner and the consistently maintained that the gun accidentally fired in the course of his struggle with the
victim were all over the weapon was categorically asserted by the eyewitness. In the course victim. More significantly, the present case involves a semi-automatic pistol, the mechanism
of grappling for the gun, both hands of petitioner were fully engaged -- his right hand was of which is very different from that of a revolver, the gun used in Reyes.[22] Unlike a revolver,
trying to maintain possession of the weapon, while his left was warding off the victim. It a semi-automatic pistol, as sufficiently described by petitioner, is prone to accidental firing
would be difficult to imagine how, under such circumstances, petitioner would coolly and when possession thereof becomes the object of a struggle.
effectively be able to release the safety lock of the gun and deliberately aim and fire it at the Alleged Grappling Not Negated
victim. by Frontal Location of Wounds
It would therefore appear that there was no firm factual basis for the following On the basis of the findings of Dr. Jaboneta showing that the wounds of the deceased
declaration of the appellate court: [Petitioner] admitted that his right hand was holding the were all frontal, the appellate court rejected petitioners claim that a grappling for the
handle of the gun while the left hand of the victim was over his right hand when the gun was weapon ever occurred. It held that if there was indeed a grappling between the two, and
fired. This declaration would safely lead us to the conclusion that when the gun went off that they had been side [by] side x x x each other, the wounds thus inflicted could not have
herein [petitioner] was in full control of the gun.[19] had a front-to-back trajectory which would lead to an inference that the victim was shot
Release of the Guns Safety Lock and frontally, as observed by Dr. Jaboneta.[23]
Firing of the Gun Both Accidental Ordinarily, the location of gunshot wounds is indicative of the positions of the parties
Petitioner testified that the .45 caliber service pistol was equipped with a safety lock at the precise moment when the gun was fired. Their positions would in turn be relevant to
that, unless released, would prevent the firing of the gun. Despite this safety feature, a determination of the existence of variables such as treachery, aggression and so on.
however, the evidence showed that the weapon fired and hit the victim -- not just once, but In the factual context of the present case, however, the location of the wounds
twice. To the appellate court, this fact could only mean that petitioner had deliberately becomes inconsequential. Where, as in this case, both the victim and the accused were
unlocked the gun and shot at the victim. This conclusion appears to be non sequitur. grappling for possession of a gun, the direction of its nozzle may continuously change in the
It is undisputed that both petitioner and the victim grappled for possession of the gun. process, such that the trajectory of the bullet when the weapon fires becomes unpredictable
This frenzied grappling for the weapon -- though brief, having been finished in a matter of and erratic. In this case, the eyewitness account of that aspect of the tragic scuffle shows
seconds -- was fierce and vicious. The eyewitness account amply illustrated the logical that the parties positions were unsteady, and that the nozzle of the gun was neither
conclusion that could not be dismissed: that in the course of the scuffle, the safety lock could definitely aimed nor pointed at any particular target. We quote the eyewitness testimony as
have been accidentally released and the shots accidentally fired. follows:
That there was not just one but two shots fired does not necessarily and conclusively Q. And when the gun fired the gun was on Tomas Balboa?
negate the claim that the shooting was accidental, as the same circumstance can easily be A. I could not see towards whom the nozzle of the gun was when it fired
attributed to the mechanism of the .45 caliber service gun. Petitioner, in his technical because they were grappling for the possession of the gun.
description of the weapon in question, explained how the disputed second shot may have xxxxxxxxx
been brought about: Q. Did you see the barrel of the gun when the gun fired?
x x x Petitioner also testified on cross-examination that a caliber .45 semi-automatic pistol, A. I could not really conclude towards whom the barrel of the gun was pointed to
when fired, immediately slides backward throwing away the empty shell and returns because the gun was turning.[24]
immediately carrying again a live bullet in its chamber. Thus, the gun can, as it did, fire in xxxxxxxxx
succession. Verily, the location of, and distance between the wounds and the trajectories of Q And was he facing Tomas Balboa when he was holding the gun with his right
the bullets jibe perfectly with the claim of the petitioner: the trajectory of the first shot going hand?
downward from left to right thus pushing Balboas upper body, tilting it to the left while A At first, they were not directly facing each other.
Balboa was still clutching petitioners hand over the gun; the second shot hitting him in the Q So later, they were facing each other?
stomach with the bullet going upward of Balboas body as he was falling down and releasing A They were not directly facing each other. Their position did not remain steady
his hold on petitioners hand x x x.[20] as they were grappling for the possession of the gun force against force.[25]
In his Petition, this explanation is given by petitioner:
x x x. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Balboa was shot frontally. First, because law. The removal of the gun from its holster, the release of the safety lock, and the firing of
the position of the gun does not necessarily indicate the position of the person or persons the two successive shots -- all of which led to the death of the victim -- were sufficiently
holding the gun when it fired. This is especially true when two persons were grappling demonstrated to have been consequences of circumstances beyond the control of
for the possession of the gun when it fired, as what exactly transpired in this case. x x petitioner. At the very least, these factual circumstances create serious doubt on the latters
x. culpability.
[The] testimony clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was on the left side of the victim Petitioners Subsequent Conduct
during the grappling when the gun fired. The second wound was thus inflicted this wise: Not Conclusive of Guilt
when the first shot hit Balboa, his upper body was pushed downward owing to the knocking To both the trial and the appellate courts, the conduct of petitioner immediately after
power of the caliber .45 pistol. But he did not let go of his grip of the hand of petitioner and the incident was indicative of remorse. Allegedly, his guilt was evident from the fact that he
the gun, Balboa pulling the gun down as he was going down. When the gun went off the was dumbfounded, according to the CA; was mum, pale and trembling, according to the trial
second time hitting Balboa, the trajectory of the bullet in Balboas body was going upward court. These behavioral reactions supposedly point to his guilt. Not necessarily so. His
because his upper body was pushed downward twisting to the left. It was then that Balboa behavior was understandable. After all, a minute earlier he had been calmly escorting a
let go of his grip. On cross-examination, petitioner testified, what I noticed was that after person from the detention cell to the investigating room; and, in the next breath, he was
successive shots we separated from each other. This sequence of events is logical looking at his companions bloodied body. His reaction was to be expected of one in a state
because the protagonists were grappling over the gun and were moving very fast. x of shock at events that had transpired so swiftly and ended so regrettably.
x x. [26] Second Issue:
Presence of All the Self-Defense
Elements of Accident Petitioner advanced self-defense as an alternative. Granting arguendo that he
The elements of accident are as follows: 1) the accused was at the time performing a intentionally shot Balboa, he claims he did so to protect his life and limb from real and
lawful act with due care; 2) the resulting injury was caused by mere accident; and 3) on the immediate danger.
part of the accused, there was no fault or no intent to cause the injury.[27] From the facts, it Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident, in which
is clear that all these elements were present. At the time of the incident, petitioner was a there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates a
member -- specifically, one of the investigators -- of the Philippine National Police (PNP) premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from imminent danger.[28] Apparently,
stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company. Thus, it was in the lawful the fatal shots in the instant case did not occur out of any conscious or premeditated effort
performance of his duties as investigating officer that, under the instructions of his superior, to overpower, maim or kill the victim for the purpose of self-defense against any aggression;
he fetched the victim from the latters cell for a routine interrogation. rather, they appeared to be the spontaneous and accidental result of both parties attempts
Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer that petitioner to possess the firearm.
tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried to remove it Since the death of the victim was the result of an accidental firing of the service gun of
from his holster. As an enforcer of the law, petitioner was duty-bound to prevent the petitioner -- an exempting circumstance as defined in Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code -
snatching of his service weapon by anyone, especially by a detained person in his - a further discussion of whether the assailed acts of the latter constituted lawful self-
custody. Such weapon was likely to be used to facilitate escape and to kill or maim persons defense is unnecessary.
in the vicinity, including petitioner himself. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision REVERSED. Petitioner
Petitioner cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised all the necessary precautions is ACQUITTED.
to prevent his service weapon from causing accidental harm to others. As he so assiduously No costs.
maintained, he had kept his service gun locked when he left his house; he kept it inside its SO ORDERED.
holster at all times, especially within the premises of his working area. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.
At no instance during his testimony did the accused admit to any intent to cause injury
to the deceased, much less kill him. Furthermore, Nicostrato Estepar, the guard in charge of
the detention of Balboa, did not testify to any behavior on the part of petitioner that would
indicate the intent to harm the victim while being fetched from the detention cell.
The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victims death was limited only to acts
committed in the course of the lawful performance of his duties as an enforcer of the
G.R. No. 4971 September 23, 1909 deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs. The case has been submitted to this
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff, court for review.
vs. The above-stated facts, which have been fully proven in the present case, constitute the
AUGUSTUS HICKS, defendant. crime of murder, defined and punished by article 403 of the Penal Code, in that the woman
Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey for plaintiff. Agustina Sola met a violent death, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia),
Jose Robles Lahesa for defendant. she being suddenly and roughly attacked and unexpectedly fired upon with a 45-caliber
TORRES, J.: revolver, at close, if not point blank range, while the injured woman was unarmed and
For about five years, from September, 1902, to November, 1907, Augustus Hicks, an Afro- unprepared, and at a time when she was listening to a conversation, in which she was
American, and Agustina Sola, a Christian Moro woman, illicitly lived together in the concerned, between her aggressor and third person, and after usual and customary words
municipality of Parang, Cotabato, Moro Province, until trouble arising between them in the had passed between her and her aggressor. From all of the foregoing it is logically inferred
last-mentioned month of 1907, Agustina quitted Hick's house, and, separation from him, that means, manners, and forms were employed in attack that directly and specially insured
went to live with her brother-in-law, Luis Corrales. A few days later she contracted new the consummation of the crime without such risk to the author thereof as might have been
relations with another negro named Wallace Current, a corporal in the Army who then went offered by the victim who, owing to the suddenness of the attack, was doubtless unable to
to live in the said house. flee from the place where she was standing, or even escape or divert the weapon.
On the 21st of December following, at about 7:30 p. m., Augustus Hicks together with a The accused, Augustus Hicks, pleaded not guilty, but notwithstanding his exculpatory
soldier named Lloyd Nickens called at said house, and from the sala called out to his old allegations which were certainly not borne out at the trial, the evidence in the case is
mistress who was in her room with Corporal Current, and after conversing with her in the absolutely at variance therewith and conclusively establishes, beyond peradventure of
Moro dialect for a few minutes, asked the corporal to come out of said room; in response doubt, his culpability as the sole fully convicted author of the violent and treacherous death
thereto the corporal appeared at the door of the room, and after a short conversation, of his former mistress, Agustina Sola.
Current approached Hicks and they shook hands, when Hicks asked him the following It is alleged by the accused that when he withdrew his hand from that of Current, who had
question: "Did I not tell you to leave this woman alone?," to which Current replied: "That is seized him, he fell backward but managed to support himself on his two hands, and when
all right, she told me that she did not want to live with you any longer, but if she wishes, she he got up again the said corporal threatened him with a revolver thrust into his face;
may quit me, and you can live with her." The accused then replied: "God damn, I have made whereupon he also drew his revolver, just as Edward Robinson caught him from behind,
up my mind;" and as Corporal Current saw that Hicks, when, he said this, was drawing a when his revolver went off, the bullet striking the deceased.
revolver from his trousers' pocket, he caught him by the hand, but the latter, snatching his This allegation appears to be at variance with the testimony of the witnesses Wallace
hand roughly away, said: "Don't do that," whereupon Current jumped into the room, hiding Current, Edward Robinson, Luis Corrales, and Lloyd Nickens in their respective declaration,
himself behind the partition, just as Hicks drew his revolver and fired at Agustina Sola who especially with that of the second and third, who witnessed the actual firing of the shot by
was close by in the sala of the house. The bullet struck her in the left side of the breast; she the aggressor at the deceased, as shown by the fact that Robinson immediately approached
fell to the ground, and died in a little more than an hour later. the accused in order to take his weapon away from him which he succeeded in doing after
Upon hearing the shot Edward Robinson, who was also in the house, went to render a brief struggle, whereupon the aggressor ran out of the house. Thus, the shot that struck
assistance and wrested the weapon from the hand of the accused. The latter immediately the deceased in the breast and caused her death was not due to an accident but to a willful
fled from the house and gave himself up to the chief of police of the town, H. L. Martin, and premeditated act on the part of the aggressor with intent to deprive the victim of her
asking him to lock him up in jail; and, when a few minutes later a policeman came running in life.
and reported that Hicks had fired a shot at Agustina, the said chief of police caused Hicks to In addition to the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as above referred to, the presence
be arrested. The latter, when once in jail, threw eight revolver cartridges out of the window; of other aggravating circumstances, such as premeditation, and the fact that the crime was
these were picked up by a policeman who reported the occurrence and delivered the committed in the dwelling of the deceased should be taken into consideration. The last-
cartridges to his chief. mentioned circumstances appears proven from the testimony of several witnesses who
In view of the foregoing the provincial fiscal on the 8th of February, 1908, filed a complaint were examined at the trial of the case.
with the Court of First Instance of said province charging Augustus Hicks with the crime of Inasmuch as in the present case the crime has already been qualified as committed with
murder. Proceedings were instituted, the trial court, after hearing the evidence adduced, treachery, the circumstance of premeditation should only be considered as a merely generic
entered judgment on the 10th of September of the same year, sentencing the accused to one. Premeditation is, however, manifest and evident by reason of the open acts executed
the penalty of death, to be executed according to the law, to indemnify the heirs of the by the accused. According to the testimony of Charles Gatchery and Eugenio R. Whited, Hicks
asked leave from the former to be absent from the canteen where he was working on the
morning of the day when the affray occurred, alleging that his mind was unsettled and that
he feared getting into trouble. It is also shown by the fact that Whited, who was in Hicks'
house about noon upon the latter's invitation, and while both where drinking gin, and while
the revolver, the instrument of the crime, was lying on the table on which were also several
loaded cartridges, heard the accused repeatedly say, referring to the deceased, that her time
had come, adding that he would rather see her dead than in the arms of another man, and
when the accused went to bed apparently very much worried, and refusing to answer when
called, the witness left him. On the day after the crime the police found on a table in the
cuprit's house several loaded cartridges, a bottle of oil and a piece of cloth used undoubtedly
for cleaning the revolver.
All the foregoing circumstances conclusively prove that the accused, deliberately and after
due reflection had resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another man, and in order
to accomplish his perverse intention with safety, notwithstanding the fact that he was
already provided with a clean and well-prepared weapon and carried other loaded cartridges
besides those already in his revolver, he entered the house, greeting everyone courteously
and conversed with his victim, in what appeared to be a proper manner, disguising his
intention and claiming her by his apparent repose and tranquility, doubtless in order to
successfully accomplish his criminal design, behaving himself properly as he had planed to
do beforehand.
As against the two foregoing aggravating circumstances no mitigating circumstances is
present, not even that mentioned in paragraph 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code, to wit loss
of reason and self-control produced by jealousy as alleged by the defense, inasmuch as the
only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such as
originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and
immoral passions.
From the foregoing considerations, and as the judgment appealed from is in accordance with
the law, it is our opinion that the same should be affirmed, as we do hereby affirm it with
costs, provided, however, that the death penalty shall be executed according to the law in
force, and that in the event of a pardon being granted, the culprit shall suffer the accessory
penalties of article 53 of the Penal Code unless the same be expressly remitted in the pardon.
So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.