G.R. No. 140511; March 1, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BALTAZAR AMION y DUGADUGA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant SPO2 Baltazar Amion, a member of the Bacolod City Police Office, was charged with Murder for the shooting death of PO3 Victor Vaflor on January 24, 1994. The prosecution established that Amion, using his service M16 rifle, shot Vaflor multiple times. Eyewitnesses Chief Inspector Edmundo Sanicas and PO3 Richard Dejoras testified that they, along with Vaflor, were at Sanicas’s house when Amion arrived. After a brief conversation, Amion suddenly opened fire on Vaflor, who was unarmed and seated. The defense, however, claimed self-defense, alleging that Vaflor had drawn his firearm first.
The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and rejected the claim of self-defense as inconsistent and improbable. It convicted Amion of Murder qualified by treachery, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of abuse of public office, use of a motor vehicle, and aid of armed men, against the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The court imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of Murder and in imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the penalty and damages. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution eyewitnesses, whose testimonies were clear, consistent, and constituted positive identification. The claim of self-defense was correctly rejected, as the number, location, and trajectory of the victim’s gunshot wounds, coupled with the fact he was seated and unarmed, utterly belied any unlawful aggression on his part and instead proved a determined effort to kill. Treachery was properly appreciated as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the victim defenseless.
Regarding the penalty, the Court found that the aggravating circumstances of abuse of public office and use of a motor vehicle were not proven with certainty. Only the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as accused-appellant surrendered before a warrant was served, was present. With no aggravating and one mitigating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. The civil indemnity was affirmed at P50,000.00, but the compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity were recomputed using the standard formula, resulting in an award of P562,399.98. Moral damages of P10,000.00 were sustained.