PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ, JR.

his vehicle to move it in such a way that it is straight in front of

June 21, 2001 | Gonzaga-Reyes, J. | Aggravating Circumstances Gonzalez’s car. Andres got out of the vehicle again and continued
shouting and cursing at Gonzalez.
FACTS: d. Dino, who rode in another vehicle, decided to go back when he didn’t
1. In 31 October 1998 at around 2:30 pm, the families of complainant Noel see his father’s car behind him. When Dino arrived, he confronted
Andres (Andres) and Inocencio Gonzalez (Gonzalez) were on their way to Andres and they had an altercation. Both Dino and Gonzalez said that
the exit of Loyola Memorial Park. Andres remained outside his vehicle during the altercation with Dino.
a. Gonzalez was driving a white Isuzu Esteem with his grandson and 3 e. When Andres suddenly reached for something inside his vehicle, Dino
maids; Andres was driving a maroon Toyota FX with his pregnant wife froze on the spot where he stood, prompting Gonzalez to get his gun
Feliber, Kenneth (2 yr old son), Kevin (nephew), and Francar (sis-in- from the glove compartment and feeling that his son was threatened, he
law. got out of his car ready to shoot.
b. At the intersection near the Garden of Remembrance, while Gonzalez f. When he saw that Andres did not have a weapon, he put down his hand
was turning left towards the exit and Andres was headed straight along which was holding the gun.
the road to the exit, the 2 vehicles almost collided. g. This is when Gonzalez’s daughter, Trisha, who was riding in Dino’s
c. Andres was able to timely step on the brakes; Gonzalez continued car, arrived at the scene, walked past Dino and Andres, and pushed
driving along his way while Andres drove behind Gonzalez’s vehicle Gonzalez away. She hugged Gonzalez and in the process held his hand
for some time and cut him off when he found an opportunity. holding the gun.
d. Andres got out of his vehicle and knocked on Gonzalez’s car window. h. Gonzalez tried to free his hand and with Trisha’s substantial body
2. Prosecution version on the disputed facts: weight pushing against him, Gonzalez lost his balance and the gun
a. Andres calmly told Gonzalez to be careful with his driving and accidentally fired.
informed the latter that he was with his family, and that Gonzalez i. Gonzalez stated that he didn’t know he shot somebody until Francar got
allegedly replied: “Accidents are accidents, what’s your problem.” out of the vehicle carrying a bloodied small boy.
b. Andres said that he saw Gonzalez turning red in anger, so he decided to j. Defense claims that Gonzalez didn’t try to flee and even told Francar to
go back to his vehicle when he was blocked by Gonzalez’s son who take the wounded to the hospital.
said: Ano problema mo sa erpat ko. 4. 4 November 1998, Information1 for complex crime of murder, double
c. Andres said that he felt threatened, so he immediately boarded his car, murder, and attempted murder was filed against Gonzalez. On
sat at the driver’s seat, closed the door, and partially opened the car arraignment, Gonzalez pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.
window just wide enough to talk back to Gonzalez’s son, Dino. 5. Case records show that Feliber did not die instantaneously. She lived to give
d. Suddenly, one of the passengers in Andres’ car said Binaril kami. birth to a baby girl by caesarian section and died the following morning on
e. Andres saw Feliber bloodied and unconscious, and Kenneth and Kevin 1 November 1998, based on the autopsy report.2
were also wounded. 6. Kenneth and Kevin were treated for extraction of metallic fragments on
f. Andres admitted that he and Dino were shouting at each other so they their faces and were discharged from the hospital 6 days later.
didn’t hear the shot.
1
g. Andres got out of his vehicle to warn Gonzalez not to flee. He then "That on or about the 31st day of October 1998, in the city of Marikina, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill,
took the wounded family members to the exit where there was an attack, assault and employ personal violence by means of treachery and abuse of superior strength upon the person of
ambulance standing by. 3 were taken to Sta. Monica Hospital, and were Noel Andres y Tomas, by then and there shooting him with a Glock cal. 9mm pistol but instead hitting one Feliber
later transferred to QCMC. Andres y Ordoño, on the left back portion of her head, thereby inflicting upon her serious and mortal wound which
directly caused her death, as well as hitting John Kenneth Andres y Ordoño and Kevin Valdez y Ordoño physical injuries
3. Defense version: which ordinarily would have caused their death, thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the
a. Andres cut Gonzalez’s path by positioning his FX obliquely along crime of murder as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of some cause or causes, independent of
their will, that is, the timely and able medical assistance rendered to John Kenneth Andres y Ordoño and Kevin Valdez y
Gonzalez’s lane from his left side; that Andres got out of his vehicle, Ordoño to their damage and prejudice as well as to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Feliber Andres y Ordoño."
stood beside Gonzalez’s car window, repeatedly cursing him: 2
"FINDINGS: Fairly nourished, fairly developed female cadaver, with post mortem lividity. Conjunctivae are pale. Lips and nail beds are
Putangina mo, ang tanda-tanda mo na hindi ka pa marunong cyanotic. Surgical incisions were noted at left tempero-parietal region. Surgical incisions is also noted at the abdominal region secondary to a
caesarian section.
magmaneho. Ang bobo bobo mo. HEAD: (1) gunshot wound, point of entry, left fronto-temporal region, measuring 1 by 0.9 cm, 9 cm from the anterior midline, with a uniform
b. Gonzalez stayed in his car and allegedly replied: Pasensiya ka na, hindi abraded collar measuring 0.2 cm., directed posteriorwards, slightly downwards, and medialwards, fracturing the frontal, and left temporal
bones, lacerating the left cerebral hemisphere, with a deformed slug fragment embedded and recovered at the posterior lobe of the left
kita nakita, nasilaw ako. Aksidente lang. cerebral hemisphere. (2) hematoma, left orbital region, measuring 4.5 by 2 cm, 4 cm from the anterior midline. There are subdural and
subarachnoidal hemorrhages. Stomach contains 1-1/2 glassful of partially digested food particles mostly rice and meaty
c. Gonzalez and another witness, Quidic, said that Andres went back to material.
CONCLUSION: Cause of death is gunshot wound on the head."
7. 25 June 1999, RTC rendered judgment finding that the shooting was witnesses for prosecution stated in court that a few seconds after
attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and held Gonzalez Noel Andres and Dino started shouting at each other, the
guilty of complex crime of murder for the death of Feliber and 2 counts appellant got out of his car and shot at the last window on the left
of frustrated murder for the injuries sustained by Kenneth and Kevin, side of the complainant's vehicle.
and sentenced him to maximum imposable penalty: death. d. Further, the appellant assigns as error the procedure adopted by the trial
8. Gonzalez’s arguments: court in taking judicial notice that the gun used by the appellant is an
a. Declared that he had no intention to shoot Noel Andres much less his automatic pistol and as such, it will not fire unless aimed at the
wife nor the children. He lost his balance when his daughter Trisha intended target.
approached and pushed him backwards to stop him from joining Dino i. The procedure taken by the trial court is contrary to Section 3,
and Noel Andres but the appellant tried to free his right hand holding Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
the gun and it accidentally fired. ii. The trial court should have given both parties the opportunity to
i. The single bullet fired hit the last window on the left side of the present evidence, expert evidence, if necessary, to inform the
Tamaraw FX. Gonzalez claims that he did not see the passengers court on the subject matter.
inside the vehicle at the time of the shooting. e. The appellant argues that the factual finding borne by such erroneous
ii. This is corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses for the procedure is equally erroneous. The gun used by the appellant is a
prosecution who testified that the windows of Andres' vehicle are semi-automatic and not an automatic pistol which means that the pistol
heavily tinted so that a person outside the vehicle would not be used has no external safety pin to be released and that the hammer need
able to see if there are people inside. not be cocked.
iii. It is also argued that had the appellant intended to shoot Noel i. The pulling of the trigger, intentional or not, will fire the gun.
Andres he could have simply done so by shooting at him ii. The use of a semi-automatic pistol does not necessarily imply
directly. treachery.
b. The defense asserts that the evidence for the prosecution failed to f. Appellant also argues that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
establish the attendance of treachery and without the attendance of the Castro and Ramos were improperly given credence by the trial court.
said qualifying circumstance the crime committed is homicide, not i. The appellant contends that a reading of their testimonies would
murder. show that their narration of the incident is rather absurd and
c. The appellant also points out that the trial court made the factual would show that they did not witness the actual shooting.
finding that the shooting happened in a matter of seconds and that it ii. Defense witnesses, Gonzalez and his daughter, Trisha, on the
was preceded by a heated argument between the parties. Such being the other hand, testified that Castro and Ramos arrived at the scene
case, it is argued that the shooting could not have been attended by only after the shooting.
treachery. There was no time for the appellant to consciously and g. As regards the injuries sustained by Kevin and Kenneth, it is argued
deliberately employ the mode of attack against Noel Andres, nor that considering that there was no intent to kill and that they stayed in
against any one of the actual victims, to insure its execution and at the the hospital only for six days, the crime committed is physical injuries.
same time to eliminate any form of retaliation from the alleged h. It is argued that the trial court erred in awarding damages. The bunch of
intended victim. receipts allegedly representing the medical expenses incurred for the
i. And yet, the trial court, contrary to the evidence on record, held injuries sustained by the victims was erroneously admitted in evidence,
that the loading of the bullet into the chamber of the gun, the without first requiring the prosecution to establish the authenticity of
cocking of the hammer, the release of the safety pin and the the receipts.
pulling of the trigger by the appellant of his automatic pistol i. The appellant also points out that the award for loss of earning
constitute conscious and deliberate effort to employ the gun as a capacity has no basis as the deceased was unemployed at the
means of committing the crime and resultantly, qualified its time of the incident.
commission by treachery. i. Finally, the appellant assigns as error the trial court's rejection of the
ii. Such a finding presupposes that the appellant loaded the gun to mitigating circumstances pleaded by the defense which allegedly
shoot Noel Andres only that very moment when his son Dino attended the commission of the crime, i.e., lack of intent to commit so
and Noel Andres were arguing. grave a wrong, passion and obfuscation, incomplete defense of a
iii. This conclusion has no basis on record. The appellant testified relative and voluntary surrender.
that his gun was loaded before he left the house and two
 i. The appellant asserts that these mitigating circumstances were iii. The appellant cannot escape liability for frustrated homicide for
duly proven during the trial and are supported by the evidence on the injuries of the two children on the ground that he fired a
record. single shot at the vehicle of Noel Andres. He is liable for all the
ii. The private complainant Noel Andres testified that he saw the consequences of his unlawful act even if the crime committed is
appellant getting red in anger after they, Andres and the different from that intended.
appellant, had a heated argument immediately prior to the f. As regards the pleaded mitigating circumstances, appellee asserts that
shooting. These admitted circumstances show that the appellant none can be considered in favor of the appellant.
was not in his proper state of mind at the time of the shooting. i. There is evidence on record that the appellant did not voluntarily
iii. First, he was angered by Andres' abusive language and later he surrender to the police and it appears from the testimonies of
got out of his car with a loaded gun to protect his son from a witnesses that he entertained the possibility of flight but his car
perceived danger. The appellant claims that his willingness to was stuck in traffic along the exit of the memorial park.
help the injured and his voluntary surrender to the police should ii. His pretense of incomplete defense of a relative is belied by his
likewise be considered as mitigating circumstances in the own admission that when he saw that Noel Andres did not have a
imposition of penalties. gun he lowered his hand holding the gun. There was allegedly no
9. The SolGen arguments: agrees with the appellant that the crime was not threat on the life of his son at the time of the shooting, no
attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and hence the crime uncontrollable fear nor irresistible force that would mitigate the
committed by the appellant for the death of Feliber Andres is homicide, not commission of the offense.
murder. g. The Solicitor-General also seeks to uphold the pecuniary awards
a. The appellee takes into consideration that the shooting was preceded by granted by the trial court. The appellee alleges that it is not denied by
a heated argument and that the supposed victim was placed on guard the appellant that Feliber Andres was a 38 year old registered nurse at
that attack was imminent. It also appears that the shooting was done the time of the shooting. Although she was then unemployed on
impulsively. account of her pregnancy, she still had earning capacity and the trial
b. There is no evidence that the appellant deliberately employed the court properly applied the salary of a government nurse under the
means of attack to insure execution of the crime and at the same time salary standardization scheme in the computation of damages for the
eliminate the risk of retaliation from the private complainant. loss of earning capacity. The receipts presented in evidence by the
c. The appellee also agrees with the appellant that the trial court erred in prosecution to establish hospitalization and other medical expenses
equating the use of an automatic pistol with treachery. The trial court incurred by the private complainants by reason of the injuries suffered
made the factual finding that the appellant's automatic pistol would not by the victims were duly authenticated by the prosecution witnesses
fire unless aimed and the trigger is deliberately pulled and hence and there is no dispute that they are exact copies of the original receipts
treachery attended the shooting. presented in court. The objections raised by the appellant in this regard
d. The appellee submits that if we follow the reasoning of the trial court it were duly met by the evidence presented by the private complainants.
would appear that the appellant intended to shoot at the complainant's h. In sum, the appellee asserts that considering that the appellant fired a
vehicle only as the shot was fired at the last window on the left side of single shot and in the process committed four offenses the appellant
the FX away from where Andres was allegedly seated. The fact that the should be held liable for the complex crime of homicide for the death
gun was drawn and fired does not mean that the mode of attack was of Feliber Andres, double frustrated homicide against Kevin and
consciously and deliberately employed. Kenneth and attempted homicide against Noel Andres.
e. However, with respect to the injuries sustained by Kevin and Kenneth, i. Under the rules on complex crimes the penalty for the gravest
the appellee disagrees with the contention that the appellant is liable offense, i.e., reclusion temporal for homicide, should be imposed
only for slight physical injuries. in its maximum period.
i. The injuries sustained by both children are head injuries and
could have caused their death if not for the immediate medical ISSUE/s:
attention given them. 1. WON treachery is present in Feliber’s death. – NO, For the rules on
ii. The number of days spent in the hospital is not determinative of treachery to apply, the sudden attack must have been preconceived by the
the severity of the wounds. Their nature and location should accused, unexpected by the victim and without provocation on the part of
instead be considered. the latter.
2. WON intent to kill is present in the injuries sustained by Kenneth and
 Kevin. – NO, it has already been found that there is a lack of intent to kill. and at the same time eliminate or reduce the risk of retaliation
Considering the nature and location of their injuries and the number of days from the intended victim.
required for their treatment, SC finds that the crime committed for the d. It has been consistently held by the SC that chance encounters,
injuries sustained by the children are 2 counts of slight physical injuries impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment or
3. WON any of the mitigating circumstances raised by Gonzalez may be that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not
appreciated. – NO, none are attendant in this case. attended by treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused to
4. WON charge for a complex crime is proper. – NO, Art. 48 requires that one deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. Thus, the sudden
be a grave or less grave felony—in this case, the crime done to the 2 attack made by the accused due to his infuriation by reason of the
children is only slight physical injuries, which is a light felony. victim's provocation was held to be without treachery.
5. WON the trial court’s award for damages is correct. – YES, while Feliber e. Sudden attacks made by the accused preceded by curses and insults by
was unemployed at the time of her death, it was proven that she was a the victim or acts taunting the accused to retaliate or the rebellious or
registered nurse and had earning capacity. aggressive behavior of the victim were held to be without treachery as
the victim was sufficiently forewarned of reprisal.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED. f. For the rules on treachery to apply, the sudden attack must have
Gonzalez is hereby found GUILTY of HOMICIDE for the death of Feliber and is been preconceived by the accused, unexpected by the victim and
sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its without provocation on the part of the latter.
medium period, as minimum, to 14 years 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal 6. SC has also had occasion to state that whether or not the attack succeeds
in its medium period, as maximum. For each count of the slight physical injuries against its intended victim or injures another or whether the crime
committed against Kenneth and Kevin, Gonzalez is hereby sentenced to 20 days of committed is graver than that intended is immaterial, as long as it is
arresto menor. Pecuniary awards granted by the RTC are hereby sustained. shown that the attack is attended by treachery, the said qualifying
circumstance may still be considered by the court.
RATIO: a. Thus, the determining factor on whether or not the commission of a
On whether Feliber’s death was attended by the aggravating circumstance of crime is attended by treachery is not the resulting crime committed but
treachery the mode of attack employed in its execution.
1. Treachery under par. 16 of Art. 14 of the RPC is defined as the deliberate 7. Treachery is never presumed. It is required that the manner of attack must
employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime be shown to have been attended by treachery as conclusively as the crime
against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its itself.
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which 8. SC affirms the recommendation of the SolGen that the shooting was not
the intended victim might raise. attended by treachery and accordingly the crime committed for the
2. For treachery to be appreciated two elements must concur: 1) the Feliber’s death is homicide and not murder.
employment of means of execution that would insure the safety of the a. The encounter between Andres and Gonzalez was a chance
accused from retaliatory acts of the intended victim and leaving the encounter. They were total strangers before their vehicles almost
latter without an opportunity to defend himself and 2) the means collided at an intersection inside the memorial park. Unfortunately,
employed were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. heated exchange of remarks that followed the near collision was fanned
a. The suddenness of the attack, the infliction of the wound from behind by a short temper, which in the case of Gonzalez, was augmented by
the victim, the vulnerable position of the victim at the time the attack the improvident use of a firearm.
was made or the fact that the victim was unarmed do not by themselves b. From a reading of the transcript of the testimonies of the witnesses, it
render the attack as treacherous. would appear that Andres, provoked the altercation. After the near
b. This is of particular significance in a case of an instantaneous attack collision of his vehicle with that of Gonzalez’s, he tailed behind the
made by the accused where he gained an advantageous position over latter's car towards the exit until he had the chance to cut him off to
the victim when the latter accidentally fell and was rendered scold him for his failure to observe traffic rules.
defenseless. i. Andres stated in court that he calmly told Gonzalez to be careful
c. The means employed for the commission of the crime or the mode of with his driving and denied that he was angry when he alighted
attack must be shown to have been consciously or deliberately from his vehicle to confront him. His statement is belied 2
adopted by the accused to insure the consummation of the crime prosecution witnesses who uniformly testified that Andres
 quarreled with or shouted and cursed at Gonzalez for his her left side. Public outrage over Feliber’s death was heightened by the
recklessness at the intersection. fact that she was then pregnant and her death left a new born baby girl
ii. Gonzalez narrated in court that Andres repeatedly shouted at and a 2 yr old boy motherless. However, a meticulous review of the
him, "Putang ina mo, ang tanda-tanda mo na gago ka pa". evidence prevents a conclusive finding of treachery and any doubt must
Andres' hostile behavior towards Gonzalez is evident from his be resolved in favor of the accused.
statement in court that he noticed Gonzalez turning red in anger. h. The pictures indicate that Gonzalez fired at the FX at an angle away
iii. It is highly improbable for Gonzalez to have turned red in anger from Andres and that Gonzalez was not aiming at anybody in
had Andres been polite, as he claims he was, in scolding particular. It is not disputed that the Gonzalez’s car was directly behind
Gonzalez. Andres could have simply communicated to the the Andres’ FX and that Gonzalez who was then seated at the driver's
appellant his disgust for the latter's bad driving when he overtook seat alighted from his car, took a few steps then fired at the left side of
the Gonzalez’s car near the scene of the shooting but instead he the FX. Whether Andres was seated at the driver's seat inside his
chose to block the Gonzalez’s path, insult and virtually provoke vehicle when Gonzalez fired at the FX, as the prosecution asserts, or
the latter to retaliate. was standing by the door of the driver's seat outside his vehicle, as the
iv. Andres stated that when he noticed Gonzalez' infuriation he defense submits, it is clear that the shot was fired away from Andres.
immediately walked towards his vehicle, because according to i. The bullet hit Feliber near her temple above the left eye indicating that
him the altercation was over. On his way to his FX he met she was facing left towards her husband when the shot was fired. The
another man, whom he later found out to be Dino. It appears that direct hit on Feliber's head shows that the angle of the shot was indeed
the altercation was far from over because again Andres had a away from Andres. Even the eyewitness for the prosecution testified
shouting match this time with Dino. In a matter of seconds, the that had Gonzalez intended to kill Andres he could have shot directly at
Gonzalez alighted from his car and fired a single shot at the last him, considering that Andres was just a few steps away from him and
window on the left side of Andres' vehicle at an angle away from that Andres was visible from the outside because his window was
Andres. partially open.
c. The single bullet fired hit Feliber on the forehead near the temporal i. The pictures show that the bullet hole was on the 3 rd window on
region above the left eye and the two children with metallic fragments the left side of the FX belying any attempt to shoot Noel Andres.
of the bullet on their faces, one at the cheek and the other below his left ii. 2 prosecution witnesses unequivocally declared that "nothing or
eye. no one" prevented Gonzalez from shooting directly at Andres
d. Prosecution did not present evidence as to the exact seating and that Gonzalez could have simply done so if he wanted to.
arrangement of the victims inside the vehicle; suffice it to say, that an But after alighting from his car, Gonzalez took a few steps and
examination of the pictures of the vehicle one of which shows a mass shot at the left side window of the FX.
of blood stains on the left side (towards the driver's seat) of the white j. The fact that Gonzalez fired his gun from behind the victim does not by
seat cover below the head rest, would show that the Feliber must have itself amount to treachery. There is no evidence on record that
been seated at the front passenger's seat and the children at the middle Gonzalez deliberately positioned himself behind the victim to gain
row behind the driver's seat. advantage over him when he fired the shot.
e. Another picture shows a bullet hole on the last window on the left side i. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that the position of the
of the vehicle and another shows that the front windshield appears Gonzalez’s car was not of his own doing but it became so when
undamaged. A ballistics expert appeared in court for the prosecution Andres overtook his car and cut off his path.
and testified that the bullet fired at the FX came from the Gonzalez’s ii. Gonzalez did not act belligerently towards Andres even after the
gun, which fact was admitted by the defense. latter cut off his path. Andres stated in court that the Gonzalez
f. Prosecution did not inquire from the ballistics expert regarding the did not alight from his car nor opened his window until he,
trajectory of the bullet or the approximate distance of the appellant Andres, tapped on it.
from the FX when he fired his gun to establish whether or not Gonzalez iii. For his part Gonzalez categorically stated that he did not point
aimed for Noel or Feliber or simply fired indiscriminately at the his gun nor threatened Andres during their short spat. Gonzalez,
vehicle. although he had his gun in his car, did not react to Andres'
g. At first blush it would seem that the shooting of Feliber was attended cursing until the latter was having an altercation with his son,
by treachery as she was inside the FX witnessing her husband's Dino.
altercation, totally defenseless from the shot that came suddenly from
 iv. Gonzalez claimed that he perceived that his son was in imminent e.
As discussed above, the encounter between Gonzalez and Andres was a
danger. Whether he overreacted or he shot at Andres' vehicle out chance encounter and the gun was in the glove compartment of
of rage over Andres' aggressive behavior, one thing appears clear Gonzalez’s car even before he left his house.
to us, that the shooting was not done in cold blood. i. The shooting was clearly a spur of the moment or impulsive
k. It is undisputed that the windows of the FX are heavily or darkly tinted decision made by Gonzalez preceded by a heated altercation at
so that a person outside would not see if anybody was inside. the Andres’ instance.
i. The pictures of the FX confirm the testimonies of both ii. Jurisprudence teaches that under the circumstances, treachery is
prosecution and defense witnesses that the other passengers of not obtaining.3
the FX were not visible from the outside. Gonzalez admitted in 10. SC finds that the prosecution has not discharged the burden to show that the
court that Andres mentioned that he has passengers with him shooting was attended by treachery is thus convinced that the crime
while he was shouting and cursing at Gonzalez but there is no committed for Feliber’s death is homicide.
indication that Gonzalez had any opportunity to see the
passengers when he fired the shot. On whether intent to kill was present in the injuries sustained by Kenneth and Kevin
ii. The totality of the evidence on record fails to support a 1. As regards the injuries sustained by the Kenneth and Kevin, SC finds that
conclusion that Gonzalez deliberately employed the mode of the crime committed is 2 counts of slight physical injuries.
attack to gain undue advantage over the intended nor the 2. Intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is physical
actual victim. Without any decisive evidence to the contrary, injuries or homicide and such intent is made manifest by the acts of the
treachery cannot be considered; thus the crime committed is accused which are undoubtedly intended to kill the victim.
homicide. a. In a case wherein the accused did not know that a person was hiding
9. RTC’s finding that the loading of the gun, the cocking of the hammer behind a table who was hit by a stray bullet causing superficial injuries
and finally the pulling of the trigger constitute a deliberate effort on the requiring treatment for three days, the crime committed is slight
part of Gonzalez to use the gun as a means of a treacherous attack is physical injuries.
patently erroneous. b. In case of doubt as to the homicidal intent of the accused, he should be
a. A single and continuous attack cannot be divided into stages to convicted of the lesser offense of physical injuries.
make it appear that treachery was involved. The entire incident c. SC has earlier pointed out that the intent to kill is absent in this case.
happened in a matter of minutes, as testified to by witnesses, and as 3. It was also found that 1 small metallic fragment was extracted from
noted by the trial court. Kenneth below his left eye while another fragment was extracted from
b. It was error for the RTC to divide the assault in stages to arrive at the Kevin "immediately below the level of his skin before the cheek bone".
conclusion that the mode of attack was consciously employed by a. An examination of the testimonies of the attending physicians, showed
Gonzalez. that the wounds sustained by the 2 children from the metallic fragments
c. Contrary to the finding of the RTC that Gonzalez prepared the gun are not in themselves fatal but may cause death if left untreated. One of
before getting out of his car, he testified that he loaded his gun before the attending physicians testified in that the fragments themselves "will
he left the house and that it was ready to fire when he alighted his car. not cause complication, it is the entry of the fragment" or the open
There was no time for him to reflect on the mode of attack since he just wound that is susceptible to infection.
picked up his gun and alighted from his car and shot at the FX a few b. 2 small fragments were no longer extracted from the face of Kevin as
seconds after Dino and Andres started shouting at each other. the doctor deemed it to be without danger of complication.
d. SC notes that the RTC pointed out that from the fact that the Gonzalez c. SC notes that the various sizes of the metallic fragments were not
prepared his gun to shoot, this was an indication of the deliberate established, at least to give an indication of the severity of the wounds
employment of the gun as a means to kill; i.e. that the use of an sustained.
automatic pistol shows that the shooting was attended by treachery. 4. Both children were discharged after 6 days of treatment and there is no
i. SC does not agree that the weapon used, by itself, is showing that they required subsequent treatment or that they were
determinative of treachery, unless it is shown that the appellant
deliberately used the gun to insure the commission of the crime 3
and to render the unarmed victim defenseless. People v. Valles: the accused, a security guard, fired his Armalite and mortally wounded the victim when the latter approached the accused
four times insisting on entering the workplace wearing improper uniform, then cursed and insulted and challenged the accused to a fight. SC
held that the shooting was not attended by treachery as the shooting was preceded by a heated altercation at the instance of the victim. It is to
be noted that the kind of weapon used against an unarmed victim was not taken into consideration in determining the attendance of treachery;
it is the mode of attack employed by the accused under the particular circumstances of a case that determines its attendance in the commission
of a crime.
 immobilized for a greater number of days by reason of the injuries 4. The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete
sustained. defense of a relative is also unmeritorious since the act of Andres in
5. Considering the nature and location of their injuries and the number of cursing and shouting at Gonzalez and his son do not amount to an unlawful
days required for their treatment, SC finds that the crime committed aggression against them.
for the injuries sustained by the children are 2 counts of slight physical 5. Finally, the plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of
injuries under Art. 266 which imposes a penalty of arresto menor or lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is likewise devoid of merit.
imprisonment for 1 to 30 days for injuries sustained that has a. This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable
incapacitated the victim for one to nine days or required medical disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a
attendance for the same period. wrong and the resulting crime committed.
6. For evident lack of criminal intent to kill Andres, the information for b. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime
attempted homicide must fail. is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and
the injury sustained by the victim.
On whether any mitigating circumstances may be appreciated c. Gonzalez’s use of a gun, although not deliberately sought nor
1. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, passion and employed in the shooting, should have reasonably placed him on
obfuscation, incomplete defense of a relative and lack of intent to guard of the possible consequences of his act. The use of a gun is
commit so grave a wrong, pleaded by the defense, were not sufficient to produce the resulting crimes committed.
convincingly proved and none can be considered in the imposition of
penalties. On whether the charge for a complex crime is accurate
2. The testimony of prosecution witness contradicts Gonzalez’s pretense of 1. The rules on the imposition of penalties for complex crimes under Art.
voluntary surrender. Witness testified that Gonzalez drove away 48 are not applicable in this case.
towards the gate of the memorial park while he was questioning him 2. Art. 48 applies if a single act constitutes two or more grave and less grave
after the shooting and had not Andres and onlookers blocked his path, felonies or when an offense is a necessary means of committing another; in
Gonzalez could have fled the crime scene. such a case, the penalty for the most serious offense shall be imposed in its
3. The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not maximum period.
obtaining. 3. Art. 9 in relation to Art. 25 defines grave felonies as those to which the law
a. For this to be considered, it must be shown that (1) an unlawful act attaches the capital punishment or afflictive penalties from reclusion
sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was committed by the perpetua to prision mayor; less grave felonies are those to which the law
intended victim; (2) that the crime was committed within a reasonable attaches a penalty which in its maximum period falls under correctional
length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that produced penalties; and light felonies are those punishable by arresto menor or fine
the obfuscation in the accused's mind; and that (3) "the passion and not exceeding two hundred pesos.
obfuscation arouse from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of 4. Considering that the offenses committed by Gonzalez’s of firing a
lawlessness or revenge." single shot are one count of homicide, a grave felony, and two counts of
b. Andres' act of shouting at the Gonzalez’s son, who was then a slight physical injuries, a light felony, the rules on the imposition of
nurse and of legal age, is not sufficient to produce passion and penalties for complex crimes, which requires two or more grave and/or
obfuscation as it is claimed by Gonzalez. Besides, Dino was shouting less grave felonies, will not apply.
back at Andres. It was not a case wherein Dino appeared helpless and
oppressed that Gonzalez lost his reason and shot at Andres’ FX. On whether the damages awarded were correct
c. The same holds true for the Gonzalez’s claim of provocation on the part 1. The pecuniary award granted by RTC for actual damages was duly
of Andres. Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to established by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as supported by
commit the wrong committed and that the provocation must be the original receipts for hospitalization and other medical expenses
commensurate to the crime committed. The sufficiency of presented in evidence by the prosecution.
provocation varies according to the circumstances of the case. 2. The award for loss of earning capacity is likewise sustained for the
i. The aggressive behavior of Andres towards Gonzalez and his reason that while Feliber was pregnant and was unemployed at the
son may be demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient time of death, it is not disputed that she was a registered nurse and had
provocation to shoot at Andres’ vehicle. earning capacity.
 3. Andres also testified that he and his wife had plans to go back to Saudi to c. The accused also argued that the gun he used was a semi-automatic, not
work after Feliber had given birth to their 2 nd baby. While there is no an automatic pistol which meant that the pistol used had no external
evidence as to Feliber's actual income at the time of her death, in view of safety pin to be released and that the hammer need not be cocked. The
her temporary separation from work because of her pregnancy, SC does not pulling of the trigger, intentional or not, would fire the gun.
consider it reversible error for the RTC to peg her earning capacity to that d. This is another prevarication. Even a semi automatic pistol has to be
of the salary of a government nurse under the salary standardization law, as cocked to chamber load the same with a bullet and activate the trigger-
a fair estimate or reasonable assessment of her earning capacity at the time hammer. In the Glock semi-automatic 9mm pistol as the one accused
of her death. used, the trigger has a built-in safety lever and must be cocked and the
a. It would be grossly inequitous to deny her spouse and her minor trigger purposely pulled to fire the gun.
children damages for the support that they would have received, 3. Treachery under par. 16, Art. 14 of the RPC is defined as the deliberate
considering clear evidence on record that she did have earning capacity employment of means, methods or forms in the execution of a crime against
at the time of her death. persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without
4. The awards for moral damages for the Feliber’s death and for the injuries risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim
sustained by Kenneth and Kevin, which under the circumstances are might raise.
reasonable, are likewise sustained. a. For treachery to be appreciated, two elements must concur: (1) the
employment of means of execution that would insure the safety of the
Pardo, dissenting: accused from retaliatory acts of the intended victim and leaving the
1. In this review, the accused claimed that the shooting was purely accidental. latter without an opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the
This is another of his false pretensions. He declared that he had no intention means of execution employed were deliberately or consciously adopted
to shoot Noel Andres much less his wife nor the children. He lost his by the offender.
balance when his daughter Trisha pushed him backward to stop him from b. The means employed for the commission of the crime or the mode of
joining the confrontation between Dino and Noel Andres. He tried to free attack must be shown to have been consciously or deliberately adopted
his right hand holding the gun and it accidentally fired hitting the rear by the accused to insure the consummation of the crime and at the same
window of the left side of the Tamaraw FX. He claimed that he did not see time eliminate or reduce the risk of retaliation by the victim.
the passengers inside the vehicle at the time of the shooting. The accused c. At the time of the shooting, the complainant was having a tiff with
asserted that the prosecution failed to establish the attendance of treachery accused's son. He knew that the complainant was not armed and there
and without said qualifying circumstance, the crime committed was was no imminent and grave danger to the life of his son.
homicide, not murder. d. His conscious use of a firearm with pre-loaded multiple missile bullets
a. We find such pretenses to be utterly false and bigoted. The evidence against a defenseless man who was totally unaware of the danger to his
plainly shows that he directly aimed his pre-loaded pistol with multi- life, as the events moved fast and he did not even hear the shot
missile bullets, released its safety trigger and deliberately pulled the constitutes treachery.
trigger aiming the gun at Andres. e. Accused insured the success of the crime without risk to himself arising
b. What a poor shot he was. The bullet hit the innocent pregnant wife of from defense or retaliation. The complainant could not defend himself
complainant. She did not die instantly, although she could have. Divine from such firepower, much less retaliate. He was with out any firearm.
intervention enabled her to give light to a baby girl born the next day. f. Even if the attack was frontal, it was sudden and the victim was
2. The trial court held that the accused's act of loading the bullet into the unarmed.
chamber of the gun and the cocking of the trigger of his automatic pistol g. Whether or not the attack succeeds against its intended victim or injures
constitute conscious and deliberate effort to employ the gun as a means of another, or whether the crime committed is graver than that intended is
committing the crime and resultantly, treachery qualified its commission. immaterial, as long as it is shown that the attack is attended by
a. The accused testified that his gun was loaded before he left the house treachery, the qualifying circumstance may still be considered.
and he got out of his car and shot at the rear window on the left side of 4. We can not agree with the accused or the view of the Solicitor General that
the complainant's vehicle. the shooting was not attended by treachery.
b. This testimony could not be true, unless the accused was an instinctive a. Noel Andres, who had his pregnant wife and child with him in his
killer who envisioned that he would use his gun to kill someone as he Tamaraw FX could have provoked the situation but was not an
left his house to go to the cemetery. aggressor. Initially he touted the accused for his failure to observe
traffic rules.
 b. However, after the altercation, complainant Andres walked toward his b. Two small fragments were no longer extracted from the face of Kevin
vehicle because the altercation was over. On his way to the Tamaraw Valdez as the doctors deemed it to be without danger of complication,
FX, he met another man, who was the accused's son. It appears that but this could still be life threatening.
Andres had another shouting match with accused's son. 6. None of the mitigating circumstances pleaded by the accused was
c. Without ado, accused got his already pre-loaded pistol, alighted from convincingly proved to be attendant and none may be considered in the
his car and fired a single shot at complainant Noel Andres. He was a imposition of the penalties.
poor shot. The single bullet hit instead Feliber Andres on the forehead
near the temporal region above the left eye and the splitting metallic
shrapnels hit two innocent children on their faces, one on the cheek and
the other below the left eye.
d. The intent to kill Noel Andres was evident when accused fired away at
him. Accused knew that his son was not physically threatened. Whether
Noel Andres was seated at the driver's seat inside his vehicle when
accused Gonzales fired, as the prosecution contends or was standing by
the door of the driver's seat outside his vehicle, as the defense submits,
there is no question that the shot was directed at complainant Noel
Andres.
e. However, as heretofore stated, the accused was a poor shot. He made
up by arming himself with a semi-automatic pistol loaded with multi-
missile bullet that splintered like a shotgun bullet. His son was not in
danger. He knew that complainant could easily be pacified without
resorting to shooting.
f. Whether accused over-reacted or he shot at Andres out of rage, one
thing appears clear to us: the accused deliberately shot complainant
Noel Andres treacherously in cold blood. However, it was his wife who
was fatally hit in the head (aberratio ictus) and shrapnels hit two young
innocent children. By an act of God, she delivered a baby girl alive but
gave her life to Him. The shooting was a deliberate act of the accused.
g. We are convinced that the shooting was attended by treachery that
qualified the crime to murder aggravated by the use of a semi-
automatic pistol specially fitted with murderous missile.
h. The crime committed for the killing of Feliber Andres was murder,
qualified by treachery and aggravated by the use of firearm.
5. As regards the injuries suffered by the two children, we agree with the
Solicitor General that the crime committed was two counts of frustrated
homicide. The intent to kill was evident with the use of deadly weapon
specially loaded with multi-missile bullets and such intent was clearly made
manifest by the acts of the accused undoubtedly intended to kill the victims.
a. An examination of the testimonies of the attending physicians showed
that the wounds sustained by the two children from the metallic
fragments may cause death if left untreated. One of the attending
physicians testified that the fragments themselves will not cause
complications; however, it is the entry of the fragments or the open
wound that is susceptible to infection.