G.R. No. 130397 ; January 17, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HONORATO GALVEZ, GODOFREDO DIEGO, and JOHN DOE, accused. GODOFREDO DIEGO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Godofredo Diego and Mayor Honorato Galvez were charged with murder for the death of Alvin Vinculado and two counts of frustrated murder against Miguel and Levi Vinculado. The incident stemmed from a dispute over a road-widening project on November 11, 1993. Miguel Vinculado objected to the cutting of his coconut trees and, accompanied by his nephews Alvin and Levi, went to the site to film the activity. An argument ensued with Mayor Galvez, who attempted to seize their cameras. Suddenly, gunshots rang out; Mayor Galvez shot Miguel with a handgun, while Diego fired an armalite rifle at Miguel, Levi, and Alvin. Alvin died from his wounds, while Miguel and Levi survived.
At trial, Diego claimed self-defense and defense of a stranger, alleging that he only fired the armalite after the Vinculados, whom he claimed were armed, shot at Mayor Galvez first. He testified that he found the rifle in the Vinculados’ van and used it to defend the Mayor. The Regional Trial Court convicted Diego of murder and frustrated murder, rejecting his defenses. The court found the prosecution’s version credible, noting the victims were shot from behind and were unarmed, and that Diego fled after the incident.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Godofredo Diego of murder and frustrated murder, and in rejecting his claims of self-defense and defense of a stranger.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings, emphasizing that factual assessments are generally binding on appeal. For self-defense or defense of a stranger to exculpate an accused, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish by clear and convincing evidence the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found Diego’s claims untenable. The medical and physical evidence showed the victims were shot from behind, negating any unlawful aggression on their part. The number and severity of the gunshot wounds, particularly those inflicted on the deceased Alvin, indicated a determined effort to kill rather than to defend. Furthermore, Diego’s act of immediately fleeing and hiding in Sorsogon after the shooting was conduct utterly incompatible with the behavior of an innocent person acting in lawful defense. His flight was a strong indication of guilt. The positive identification by the surviving victims, corroborated by the nature of the wounds, established conspiracy and the qualifying circumstance of treachery, as the attacks were sudden and unexpected, denying the victims any chance to defend themselves. The award of moral damages was reduced to P50,000.00 for each offended party, and attorney’s fees were reduced to P100,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.