THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233546. March 14, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. MANUEL LEAÑO Y PEREZ @ "MANNY BOY", respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233546 (People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Leano y Perez @ "Manny Boy"). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the letter dated January 21, 2018 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since June 11, 2015;
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation dated February 14, 2018 stating that it is adopting its brief for the appellee as its supplemental brief since said brief had adequately discussed appellant's guilt of the crime charge as rightfully found by the trial court in its Decision of May 29, 2015 with prayer for reservation of his right to file one in response to any supplemental brief that accused-appellant may file which may raise new issues; and
(3) accused-appellant's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 19, 2018 stating that he would no longer file his supplemental brief considering that he had already exhaustively discussed his case and arguments in the appellant's brief.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed February 22, 2017 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07564, which affirmed the May 29, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), finding Manuel Leaño guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
Facts show that Miraluna Lampera, one of the prosecution witnesses, testified that Antonio Ocampo (victim) is her neighbor while Leaño works as a security guard in the area. On September 11, 2011, she heard Ocampo shout, "Kuya Lan, bakit ka ba ganun, ano ba talaga kasalanan ko sa iyo?" several times. She thereafter saw Leaño holding a shotgun, running and shouting, "Putang ina mo Tony lumabas ka diyan." She identified Kuya Lan as Leaño and Tony as Ocampo. Leaño rushed near Ocampo's house and pulled the latter, causing both of them to fall down. Leaño rose, retrieved the shotgun and shot Ocampo in the chest. Thereafter, Leaño returned to his barracks. The victim was rushed to the hospital, but he died on the way.
Accused-appellant Leaño testified that he is a security guard and was in the barracks with his fellow security guards and their respective wives when they heard shouts. They found the shouts to be coming from the southern part of the property they were guarding; hence, they decided to investigate. Upon reaching the area, they discovered that it was Ocampo shouting. While he was standing, Ocampo lunged at him as if to punch him; thereafter, both of them fell down the stairs. When he was about to stand up, he saw Ocampo emerging from his house holding an itak. As Ocampo moved to strike him, he shot him with his shotgun. He wanted to help when he saw that Ocampo was hit, ' but got afraid that he might be mauled by the crowd. Instead, he went back to his barracks, gathered his things and surrendered himself to the nearest barangay hall.
In an information dated September 12, 2011, Leaño was charged with the crime of Murder. For his part, Leaño interposed self-defense to exculpate himself from liability. After trial, the RTC, on May 29, 2015, found him guilty of murder. He appealed before the CA, imputing errors on the RTC in not giving weight to his claim of self-defense and, in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The CA, however, affirmed the RTC decision, thus the present appeal.
An indispensable requisite of self-defense is that the victim must have mounted an unlawful aggression against the accused. Without such unlawful aggression, the accused cannot invoke self-defense as a justifying circumstance. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. 2
The Court believes that the RTC and the CA are correct in their observation that there is no unlawful aggression that contemplates real or imminent threat to Leaño's life or limb. Given the distance between Leaño and Ocampo, it was not clear whether the attempt to hack Leaño poses a serious and imminent threat to his life. Moreover, the RTC noted that no itak was recovered from the scene of the crime.
Another factor which militates against Leaño's claim of self-defense is the nature and number of wounds suffered by Ocampo. The presence of nine (9) gunshot wounds eloquently refutes his allegation of self-defense. Further, the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense cannot be appreciated considering that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Ocampo.
Further, the presence of treachery is evident. It has been held that the use of a shotgun against an unarmed victim is undoubtedly treacherous, as it denies the victim the chance to fend off the offender, 3 as in the present case. Other than the sole testimony of Leaño, it was not proven by convincing evidence that Ocampo held an itak and attacked him.
WHEREFORE, the assailed CA Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez.
2.People v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012.
3.People v. Labiaga, G.R. No. 202867, July 15, 2013.