G.R. No. 136844 ; August 1, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SPO1 Rodolfo Concepcion y Peralta, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging SPO1 Rodolfo Concepcion with Murder for shooting Lorenzo Galang on November 24, 1997, in Barangay Cut-Cut II, Tarlac. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Maximo Sison, Jr. and Arturo Yarte, who testified that after the victim was brought to the barangay hall for questioning following a quarrel, appellant arrived, fired shots past the victim’s ears, then thrust his Armalite rifle against the victim’s abdomen and shot him in the thigh, followed by more shots to the chest, causing instant death. The victim’s brother and mother testified on the fact of death and damages. The defense, invoking the exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, claimed the shooting was accidental. Appellant testified that while he was investigating the unruly and drunk victim, he fired warning shots, after which the victim grabbed the gun’s barrel, causing it to accidentally fire. Defense witnesses Estelita Baluyot and Milagros Villegas corroborated this version. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is exempt from criminal liability on the ground of accident.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the offense and the damages. The Court ruled that appellant failed to prove the exempting circumstance of accident. For accident to apply, the accused must prove: (1) he was performing a lawful act with due care; (2) the injury was caused by mere accident; and (3) there was no fault or intent to cause injury. The Court found appellant’s claim of accident unconvincing. The testimony of prosecution eyewitnesses, which was consistent and corroborated by the autopsy report showing multiple gunshot wounds to vital areas, established that appellant deliberately shot the victim. The victim was unarmed and seated, posing no threat to the armed appellant. The Court noted inconsistencies in appellant’s testimony and found no ill motive for the eyewitnesses to falsely testify. However, the Court held that treachery was not properly alleged in the Information as a qualifying circumstance; it was only stated in the accusatory portion but not described in the statement of facts. Thus, treachery could only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. Consequently, the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder. Considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender (as appellant remained at the scene and acknowledged his act), the penalty was imposed in its maximum period. The Court modified the award of damages, deleting the award for expected income due to lack of competent proof and increasing the civil indemnity and moral damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence.