G.R. No. 128116 . January 24, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GILBERT PERALTA Y RINGOR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution evidence established that in the early morning of July 3, 1991, the victim, Louise Rimando, and three fraternity brothers were in Quezon City. After interacting with a gay pimp regarding prostitutes, their vehicle was followed by appellant Gilbert Peralta in a taxi. Rimando’s group parked, and Peralta approached. Rimando identified himself as an NBI agent. Peralta, after stating “NBI ka pala,” grabbed Rimando’s ID and shot him twice, resulting in his death days later. Three eyewitnesses positively identified Peralta, who was illuminated by a lamppost.
The defense, presented by Peralta, a police officer, claimed he was on a surveillance mission regarding prostitution. He asserted that he approached the group to effect an arrest, identified himself, and a heated argument ensued with Rimando. Peralta testified that Rimando grappled for his service firearm, and during the struggle, the gun accidentally fired twice, killing Rimando. He claimed self-defense and performance of official duty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of Murder, or if the killing was justified or attended by qualifying circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim of self-defense and performance of duty. For self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, which Peralta failed to discharge. His claim of a struggle was inconsistent with the medico-legal findings showing no defensive wounds on the victim and the trajectory of the bullets, which indicated the assailant was at the victim’s side, not facing him in a frontal grapple. His claim of performing a lawful arrest was also untenable, as he failed to properly identify himself as an officer or inform the persons of the cause of their arrest before employing force.
However, the Court also found that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses testified to a two-to-three-minute argument preceding the shooting. This interval of heated exchange afforded the victim some forewarning of a possible aggression, thereby negating the sudden and unexpected attack required for treachery. Evident premeditation requires proof of the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating this determination, and sufficient lapse between the determination and execution. The prosecution evidence failed to establish these elements. Absent any qualifying circumstance, the crime is Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was accordingly reduced.