Bautista v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 207896. September 16, 2013.]

ROGER BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2013 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 207896 (Roger Bautista vs. People of the Philippines). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.

This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated March 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33950, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated January 18, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 39 finding herein petitioner Roger Bautista @ "Rod" (Roger) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.

The factual antecedents show that in the evening of January 5, 2008, Julieta Esguerra, wife of the victim, Agapito Esguerra (Agapito), was in the sala of their house when she heard her husband engaged in a heated argument with Roger. This prompted her to call her son Anthony, but, suddenly, she heard five successive gunshots. When she and her son went out to see what happened, she saw Agapito lying on the ground with his body bloodied. She also saw Roger place a gun in his bag, then board his tricycle and speed away. She rushed Agapito to the nearby Our Purification Doctors Hospital, but due to lack of facilities, she was advised to have Agapito transferred to the Region 1 Medical Center in Dagupan City. Unfortunately, Agapito was declared dead on arrival at the Region 1 Medical Center. The other prosecution witness, Casius Maron (Casius), testified that he was standing in front of his sister's store when he saw Agapito in an altercation with Roger. Roger was berating Agapito, who was then a barangay tanod, for being drunk on duty. Agapito reacted and uttered that he could still fulfill his duties despite his intoxication. When Roger was convincing Agapito to go home, Agapito cursed Roger. Roger cursed back at Agapito and drew a gun from his back and pointed the same at Agapito. Agapito raised his hands and said that he will not fight. However, Roger fired his gun five times, hitting Agapito four times in the chest, left thigh and abdomen. HSacEI

For his part, Roger admitted shooting Agapito, but claimed that he acted in self-defense. He asserted that it was Agapito who got a gun from his waist. As they were grappling for the gun, the gun accidentally went off upwards. After Roger was able to get hold of the gun, Agapito declared that he would surely kill Roger and immediately picked up two big stones. When Agapito was about to throw the stones, Roger shot him. Roger could not remember how many shots he fired because he was allegedly stunned during that time.

The RTC rejected Roger's self-defense theory for failure to prove the requisites thereof. The RTC ruled that Roger was guilty of homicide and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The RTC further ordered Roger to pay Agapito's heirs the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, P45,000.00 as actual damages, and P30,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses, and costs.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, also refusing to accord credence to Roger's allegation of self-defense. The CA rejected Roger's argument that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and incredible; and agreed with the RTC that Roger failed to present any evidence, other than his self-serving testimony, to prove that there was unlawful aggression on Agapito's part and that Roger did not provoke him. The CA, however, modified the monetary damages awarded by reducing the amounts of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and moral damages to P50,000.00. The CA also deleted the award of exemplary damages as no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime.

We affirm Roger's conviction.

Since Roger admitted that he killed Agapito, the burden of evidence that he acted in self-defense shifted to him. It is textbook doctrine that when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing. Hence, he must prove the essential requisites of self-defense. 3

To successfully claim self-defense, the accused must satisfactorily prove the concurrence of the elements of self-defense. Under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who acts in defense of his person or rights does not incur any criminal liability provided that the following circumstances concur: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. DAHCaI

The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of a threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger — not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. 4

In this case, the requisite of unlawful aggression on Agapito's part is patently absent. Roger's insistence that the gun was Agapito's, that Agapito expressly threatened to kill him and was about to throw big stones at him was refuted by the testimony of prosecution witness Casius. According to Casius, it was Roger who drew a gun from his back and shot Agapito five times despite the fact that Agapito already raised his hands and said that he would not fight Roger.

It must be stressed that Agapito suffered four gunshot wounds in the chest, left thigh and abdomen. It is an oft repeated rule that the presence of a large number of wounds, their location and their seriousness would negate self-defense. Instead, they indicate a determined effort to kill. 5

We thus agree with the CA and the RTC that Roger, in killing Agapito, did not act in self-defense. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. 6

Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance alleged and proven in the case at bar, the penalty should be applied in its medium period pursuant to Article 64 (1) of the same, which ranges from a minimum of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to a maximum of 17 years and 4 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty shall be within the range of prision mayor in any of its periods as minimum to reclusion temporal in its medium period as the maximum. The range of prision mayor is from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, while reclusion temporal in its medium period ranges from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. The RTC imposed on petitioner the indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the RTC is correct.

On the civil aspect of the case, we affirm the CA's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, in addition to P45,000.00 as actual damages to the heirs of the victim. As no aggravating circumstance is present in this case, the CA properly deleted the award of exemplary damages. We only modify the CA decision by expressly imposing interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum on all damages awarded, reckoned from the finality of this resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33950 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION which further orders ROGER BAUTISTA @ "ROD" to pay interest on all damages awarded in this case at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED." BERSAMIN, J., on leave; PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1537 (Revised) dated September 6, 2013. VILLARAMA, JR., J., on leave; MENDOZA, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1545 (Revised) dated September 16, 2013. DSAacC

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 26-37.

2.Id. at 64-70.

3.Sanchez v. People, 539 Phil. 420, 425 (2006).

4.Flores v. People, G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.

5.People v. Rubiso, 447 Phil. 374, 382 (2003).

6.People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 281.