G.R. No. 139369 ; June 27, 2005
NESTOR SULLON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nestor Sullon was charged with murder for shooting Edilberto Mondejar while the latter was asleep on a bamboo bench inside Sullon’s billiard hall on September 26, 1993. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including Jose Dizon, who testified to hearing a gunshot, looking over a fence, and seeing the victim bloodied, with Sullon’s brother subsequently warning him away. The municipal health officer’s post-mortem findings indicated a gunshot wound to the forehead with a downward trajectory and no signs of struggle. The Regional Trial Court convicted Sullon of murder, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Sullon filed this petition, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, claiming the sole eyewitness testimony was uncorroborated and inconsistent. He further asserted that the trial court misappreciated the medico-legal testimony regarding the lack of struggle. Finally, he claimed self-defense, contending the victim had previously threatened him with a knife, which justified the shooting.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Sullon’s conviction for murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding. Sullon’s petition essentially asked the Supreme Court to re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence, which is not its function in a Rule 45 review absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked or misappreciated facts of substance.
The Court found no reason to deviate from the lower courts’ uniform factual conclusions. The prosecution evidence established the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The victim was shot while asleep, utterly defenseless and unable to offer any resistance, which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The claim of self-defense was properly rejected. For self-defense to prosper, the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Sullon failed to do so. The alleged previous threat did not constitute imminent unlawful aggression at the time of the shooting, as the victim was asleep. The trial court correctly imposed the penalty and awarded civil indemnity, actual damages, and moral damages to the victim’s heirs.