GR 114904; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 114904 ; January 29, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DEMETRIO HUBILLA, JR. and SALVADOR PALLE, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Demetrio Hubilla, Jr. and Salvador Palle, CAFGU members, were convicted of murder for the death of Antonio Rosas. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Reynaldo Halcon, testified that on June 14, 1991, while he and the victim were walking, appellants confronted Rosas. When Rosas did not lower his hoe as commanded, Hubilla shot near his feet. As Rosas fled, Hubilla shot him again, causing his death. Palle was present, poking his rifle at the victim but did not fire. The victim’s widow and the examining doctor corroborated the incident and cause of death. The defense claimed self-defense, alleging Rosas suddenly attacked them with a hoe, disarmed Palle, and aimed the rifle at Hubilla, who then fired in fear.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder, and if not, what crime was proven.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the self-defense claim. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The appellants’ version was inherently improbable, as it was unbelievable that a man armed only with a hoe would aggressively attack two fully armed CAFGU members. The positive identification by the credible eyewitness prevailed over the untenable plea.
However, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation alleged in the information were not proven. Treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The prosecution evidence showed the attack was frontal and the initial command to lower the hoe gave the victim a forewarning, negating a sudden and unexpected assault. Evident premeditation requires proof of the time of the criminal intent, an act showing persistence, and sufficient lapse for reflection. The encounter appeared casual and the attack spontaneous, with no evidence of prior planning. Thus, the crime committed was homicide, not murder. Considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty was adjusted under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.