GR 102539; (May, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102539 May 17, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. P/Sgt. Jose Arguelles, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of February 5, 1990, in Puerto Princesa, prosecution witness Ismael Mulaga saw accused-appellant P/Sgt. Jose Arguelles, a policeman, alight from a tricycle, point a short gun at Bagamiel Gabuco, and utter, “Police ito, huwag kang tatakbo.” Mulaga then heard a gunshot and saw Gabuco fall. The autopsy report showed the victim was shot in the back below the waistline. The defense presented a different version, claiming Arguelles and a companion were responding to a reported mauling. They chased Gabuco, and when Arguelles approached him, Gabuco kicked him. Arguelles alleged he drew his service gun to fire a warning shot, lost his balance, and the gun fired accidentally. He claimed he then brought the wounded Gabuco to a hospital. Arguelles was charged with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging treachery and evident premeditation. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty of Murder and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua and ordered him to pay damages.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in: 1) appreciating the elements of treachery and evident premeditation to qualify the killing as Murder; and 2) not convicting the accused-appellant of plain and simple Homicide or Homicide through Reckless Imprudence.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding of Murder, qualified by treachery, but found no evident premeditation. The Court held that the evidence conclusively proved treachery. The victim was shot in the back, as confirmed by the autopsy report and the eyewitness account, rendering him defenseless and unable to see his assailant. This method of attack ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the accused. The Court rejected the defense of accidental shooting, noting the accused’s own testimony before an administrative hearing indicated he was “nahihiwagaan” (puzzled) as to how the victim, allegedly facing him, was shot in the back. The Court modified the damages, deleting the award of P150,000.00 for lack of basis in the records and instead imposed an indemnity of P50,000.00 to be paid to the victim’s heirs. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua was affirmed.