GR 131817; (August, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131817 ; August 8, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANTE DOMINGO Y LIMPOT, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Dante Domingo y Limpot, along with Leonardo Guerrero and Nanette Ricarse, was charged with murder for the killing of PO3 Pedro Delgado on October 12, 1994, in Davao City. The prosecution presented eyewitness Michael Abad, who testified that he saw accused-appellant, Guerrero, and Ricarse walking with the victim. He saw Ricarse hand something to accused-appellant, who then shot Delgado at the back of his head. Another witness, Rosauro Sauza, testified he heard gunshots and saw accused-appellant tucking something in his waistline. The autopsy report indicated “Gunshot Wound of the Head” as the cause of death. Accused-appellant claimed self-defense, alleging the victim taunted him about the paternity of his child, pushed him, and attempted to stab him with a knife, prompting him to shoot in response. The trial court acquitted Guerrero and Ricarse for insufficiency of evidence but convicted accused-appellant of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay indemnity and actual damages. Accused-appellant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in not considering his plea of self-defense, in finding treachery, and in not considering the mitigating circumstances of intoxication, passion, and obfuscation.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in not considering accused-appellant’s plea of self-defense.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstances of intoxication, passion, and obfuscation in favor of accused-appellant.
RULING
1. The trial court correctly disregarded the plea of self-defense. Accused-appellant failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence the elements of self-defense, particularly that he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. The victim suffered four gunshot wounds, three to the head, while accused-appellant suffered no injury. The number and location of the wounds negated the claim of self-defense.
2. Treachery was properly appreciated. The attack was sudden, with accused-appellant shooting the victim from behind while they were walking and conversing. The means employed ensured the offender’s safety and prevented the victim from mounting any defense, satisfying the conditions for treachery.
3. The mitigating circumstances of intoxication, passion, and obfuscation were not applicable. Accused-appellant failed to prove the quantity of alcohol intake sufficient to affect his mental faculties. Passion and obfuscation were not present, as accused-appellant pleaded with the victim to stop taunting him, showing he had control, and such circumstances cannot co-exist with treachery. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the damages: moral damages of P50,000.00 were awarded, and actual damages were reduced to P10,000.00, as only that amount was duly receipted.