GR 125185; (May, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125185 May 5, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGILIO BORREROS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that on February 8, 1990, appellant Virgilio Borreros, carrying a gun, approached a mahjong session in Quezon City where victims Federico Medina and Danilo Almario were present. Without provocation, Borreros shot Medina in the forehead at close range. A commotion ensued, after which several more shots were heard. Both Medina and Almario were found dead. Autopsy reports indicated Medina suffered two gunshot wounds, while Almario sustained four, including one at the back.
The defense presented a different version. Borreros claimed he was accosted by a drunk and aggressive Medina, who drew a gun. Borreros alleged he grabbed the gun in a struggle and shot Medina in self-defense. He further testified that he then shot Almario only after Almario attacked him with a club. The defense argued the killings were justified and, alternatively, that the crime for Almario’s death should only be homicide, not murder.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved Borreros’ guilt for the killings beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in both killings.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. The Court found the prosecution witnesses credible and their testimonies consistent, thereby establishing Borreros’ culpability. The defense of self-defense was rejected for failing to meet the required elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Borreros’ flight after the incident and his failure to report the matter to authorities negated his claim.
Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court upheld the finding of treachery for the killing of Federico Medina. The attack was sudden and deliberate, executed in a manner that deprived Medina of any opportunity to defend himself. However, the Court modified the conviction for the killing of Danilo Almario from Murder to Homicide. The prosecution failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence how the attack on Almario was commenced. The mere location of a wound at the back is insufficient to establish treachery, as its presence cannot be presumed but must be proven as conclusively as the killing itself. The Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each victim.