G.R. No. 116281 February 8, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SPO1 ROMULO GUTIERREZ, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant SPO1 Romulo Gutierrez, Jr. was charged with Murder for the killing of Antonio Mercene, Jr., a duly elected municipal councilor of Pola, Oriental Mindoro. The incident occurred on October 17, 1992, in Barangay Batuhan. The information alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, taking advantage of public position, and commission with insult to public authorities. Accused-appellant initially pleaded not guilty but later moved to invoke self-defense, which the trial court treated as a conditional plea of guilty and entered a plea of not guilty for him. The prosecution presented evidence including the autopsy report by Dr. Alita H. Fetizanan, which concluded the cause of death was acute hemorrhagic shock from a gunshot wound behind the left ear. Witness Arnel Marasigan Aranas testified about previous animosity, stating that the victim had filed administrative complaints against accused-appellant for grave misconduct and illegal fishing. Eyewitnesses Jose Advincula and Dante Pajaron testified that they saw accused-appellant, who was armed, kick, box, and hit the unarmed victim, who was trying to stand up, before shooting him at close range behind the left ear. Accused-appellant claimed self-defense, testifying that the victim attacked him with a knife. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay indemnity, damages, and other amounts to the victim’s heirs.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant of Murder, rejecting his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that accused-appellant failed to prove the essential elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. His claim that the victim attacked him with a knife was not credible and was contradicted by the physical evidence and the consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, who saw accused-appellant assault the unarmed victim before shooting him at close range. The Court found that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, ensuring the victim’s defenselessness. The Court also affirmed the presence of the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position, as accused-appellant used his authority as a police officer to facilitate the crime. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed. The award of damages was modified, deleting the awards for loss of earning capacity, reimbursement of funeral expenses, support for education, and moral damages for lack of sufficient basis, but increasing the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and awarding P50,000.00 as moral damages.