G.R. No. 1504 : April 8, 1905

FACTS:
On the night of July 1, 1903, in Iligan, a group of U.S. cavalry soldiers, including the deceased Frank Moyer, were at a house of ill repute. The accused, Robert L. Highfill, arrived with companions and began dancing noisily. At the request of the house owner, Moyer ordered Highfill and his group to stop dancing and leave, which they did. They returned shortly after, but Moyer again told them they were not welcome. Highfill then challenged Moyer to come downstairs, implying a fight. Highfill and his companions left, with Highfill indicating he would return.

Later, after an unrelated altercation, Moyer and his companions left the house and encountered Highfill waiting in the street. A fight ensued between Highfill and Moyer. During the struggle, Highfill shot Moyer with a revolver, causing a fatal wound to the chest. Evidence showed Highfill had taken the revolver from the barracks earlier that night. The blood-stained revolver and Highfill’s hat were found near the scene. Moyer was found to have a piece of brick wrapped in a handkerchief, and Highfill had a wound on his head consistent with being struck by such an object.

The provincial fiscal charged Highfill with murder. The trial court, however, qualified the crime as homicide and sentenced him to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. Highfill appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of the crime of homicide, and not murder, and properly appreciated the attendant circumstances.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment with modifications.

1. Classification of the Crime: The Court upheld the classification of the crime as Homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code, not Murder. The qualifying circumstances of premeditation and treachery (alevosía) alleged in the information were not present. The fight was a sudden altercation where the parties faced each other in the street, and the preceding events showed a history of mutual provocation.

2. Guilt of the Appellant: The Court found the appellant guilty as the principal by direct participation. The evidence conclusively established that Highfill, resentful after being ejected from the house, challenged Moyer, waited for him armed with a revolver, initiated the fight, and fired the fatal shot.

3. Circumstances: The Court found the presence of one mitigating circumstance: voluntary intoxication under Article 9, paragraph 6 of the Penal Code, as the appellant was drunk at the time and there was no evidence his intoxication was habitual or sought to commit the crime. No aggravating circumstances were present to offset it.

4. Rejection of Self-Defense: The Court rejected the claim of self-defense. The three requisitesunlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocationwere not all present. The appellant was the aggressor who sought the confrontation, and his use of a deadly firearm was not a reasonably necessary response.

5. Penalty: Due to the presence of one mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its minimum degree.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Homicide. The appellant, Robert L. Highfill, was sentenced to the minimum penalty of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessory penalties, ordered to indemnify the heirs of Frank Moyer in the amount of P1,000, and to pay the costs of both instances.