G.R. No. 126650 July 28, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMARJONEL FRANCISCO TOMOLIN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Emarjonel Francisco Tomolin, a security guard, was charged with two counts of murder for the deaths of fellow guards Rolando Virtudes and Alfredo Ayeras. The prosecution evidence established that on October 5, 1994, inside their assigned compound in Parañaque, accused-appellant, without provocation, approached the two victims who were seated near the gate. He suddenly drew his service firearm, shot Virtudes in the head, and then immediately fired two shots at Ayeras. An eyewitness, security guard Narciso Bistel, positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant who thereafter fled. Responding police officers apprehended accused-appellant nearby and recovered from him a .38 caliber revolver. Ballistics examination confirmed the fatal bullets were fired from this weapon.
The accused-appellant admitted the killings but interposed the justifying circumstance of self-defense. He claimed that the victims insulted him, poked a gun at him, and attempted to grab his firearm, leading to a struggle during which the shots were fired. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the physical evidence inconsistent with a close-range struggle. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of two counts of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, plus damages.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly rejected accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense and properly convicted him of murder, qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is anchored on the settled principle that one who invokes self-defense admits the killing and assumes the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstances of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found accused-appellant’s narrative inherently improbable and conclusively refuted by the physical evidence. The autopsy reports showed Virtudes was shot at the head from a distance, with the bullet trajectory moving medially, forward, and downward, while Ayeras was shot in the back. These findings are incompatible with a close-quarters, spontaneous struggle as described by the accused and instead corroborate the prosecution’s version of a sudden, deliberate attack.
Furthermore, the Court upheld the finding of treachery. The qualifying circumstance was established by the eyewitness account detailing how accused-appellant approached the unsuspecting, seated victims from behind and launched a sudden, unexpected attack, employing a mode of execution that deliberately ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victims might offer. The Court accorded finality to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, noting no arbitrariness was present. The penalty and civil indemnity were affirmed, though the award for moral damages was deleted for lack of legal basis.