G.R. No. 200026, October 4, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Armando Delector, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

On August 8, 1997, in Gandara, Samar, Vicente Delector was conversing with his brother Antolin when he was fatally shot twice. The prosecution, through eyewitnesses including Vicente’s son Amel and Raymond Reyes, identified the assailant as another brother, accused-appellant Armando Delector. They testified that Armando fired from their mother’s house, hitting Vicente, who later died from his wounds. The prosecution’s narrative depicted a sudden and deliberate attack.
In his defense, Armando claimed the shooting was accidental. He testified that Vicente, armed with a gun, had followed him to their mother’s house and attacked Antolin. Armando intervened, grappled with Vicente for control of the firearm, and during the struggle, the gun accidentally discharged. This version was corroborated by Armando’s son. The trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected this defense, convicting Armando of murder qualified by treachery and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction for murder, specifically in rejecting the defense of accident and in finding the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ rulings. It acquitted Armando Delector of murder but found him guilty of the lesser crime of homicide. The Court meticulously examined the defense of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, which requires that the act be one of mere accident without fault or intention of causing injury. The Court found the prosecution evidence insufficient to disprove Armando’s claim of a struggle over the gun beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were at a distance, did not categorically rule out the possibility of a physical altercation preceding the gunshots. Where two plausible versions exist, the one favoring the accused must be adopted.
However, the Court held that Armando was not entirely without culpability. By his own admission, he willingly engaged in a struggle with an armed person, an act done with lack of due care and imprudence. This reckless disregard for consequences constituted criminal negligence, making him liable for the resulting death. Consequently, his act fell under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code on quasi-offenses, not the exempting circumstance of accident. The Court also ruled that treachery was not proven, as the prosecution failed to establish how the attack was executed in a manner that deliberately ensured the victim’s defenselessness. The penalty was adjusted accordingly, and Armando was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term.