GR 124670; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124670; June 21, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PATROLMAN DOMINGO BELBES, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Patrolman Domingo Belbes was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court for the shooting death of Fernando Bataller. The prosecution established that on February 16, 1990, Belbes and another officer were on duty at a school prom. Upon a report of trouble, they responded and found the intoxicated victim. Without any warning, Belbes fired his Armalite rifle, hitting Bataller multiple times and causing his death. The prosecution’s eyewitnesses testified that the shooting was sudden and unprovoked.
The defense presented a different version, claiming self-defense and fulfillment of duty. Belbes testified that the victim, who was destroying a school wall, attacked him and his partner with a knife after they identified themselves as police officers. He alleged that during a struggle over his firearm, the gun discharged, killing Bataller. However, the defense witness, the partner, failed to corroborate key details like a warning shot or initial aggression from the victim’s companions.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court found that treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence did not clearly establish that the accused employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that deliberately ensured its execution without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. The suddenness of an attack alone does not constitute treachery.
However, the Court rejected the claim of complete self-defense or justifying circumstance, as the evidence showed the victim was unarmed and the number and location of the gunshot wounds contradicted a mere accidental discharge during a struggle. The Court held the shooting was intentional, thus negating a conviction for reckless imprudence. Nevertheless, the Court appreciated the incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal Code as a mitigating factor. As a police officer responding to a disturbance, the accused acted in the performance of a duty, though he used excessive force. Consequently, appellant was found guilty only of Homicide, mitigated by this circumstance, and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty.