G.R. No. 100382 , March 19, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO TABACO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mario Tabaco, a member of the 117th PC, was charged with four counts of Murder and one count of the complex crime of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide. The charges stemmed from a shooting incident at the Octagon Cockpit Arena in Aparri, Cagayan, on March 22, 1987. The prosecution evidence established that Tabaco, while in civilian clothes and armed with an M-14 rifle, suddenly and without provocation fired upon a group of individuals, killing Mayor Jorge Arreola, Capt. Oscar Tabulog, Felicito Rigunan, and Pat. Romeo Regunton. He then exited the arena and, in a subsequent confrontation, fired his weapon again, killing Jorge Siriban, Jr. and wounding Sgt. Benito Raquepo.
The defense claimed that Tabaco was acting in self-defense and in the performance of his duty, alleging that he fired only after being attacked by the victims who were armed and attempting to kill him. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible and noting the absence of evidence of unlawful aggression from the victims. The court convicted Tabaco of four counts of Murder and one count of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide, imposing the death penalty for each murder count. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of four separate counts of Murder instead of a single complex crime, and in rejecting his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on credibility, emphasizing that the factual conclusions of the trial court are accorded high respect. The claim of self-defense was correctly rejected as the accused failed to prove the essential element of unlawful aggression. The victims were merely seated and unarmed when the sudden attack occurred; no evidence showed they posed an imminent danger to the accused.
Regarding the nature of the crimes, the Court ruled that the four killings constituted separate crimes of Murder, not a single complex crime. The legal logic is that when multiple deaths result from separate acts, even if committed in rapid succession, each death gives rise to individual criminal liability. The burst of gunfire from an automatic M-14 rifle, while occurring in a short span, constituted a series of distinct acts leading to separate fatalities. The doctrine in People vs. Pardo instructs that where two deaths do not result from a single act but from different shots, two separate murders are committed. Consequently, the accused is liable for each death. The penalty for each murder is reclusion perpetua, as the death penalty statute in effect at the time of the crime was unconstitutional. The judgment was affirmed with the modification that four separate sentences of reclusion perpetua are imposed.