G.R. No. 176981 , December 24, 2008
EDGAR GERASTA Y LAPUS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

On March 9, 1980, at around 6:30 p.m. in San Fernando, Cebu, petitioner Edgar Gerasta was charged with Homicide for shooting and killing Deogracias Rendal, a barangay police. The Information alleged treachery and evident premeditation. The case was consolidated with a separate charge for Illegal Possession of Firearms arising from the same incident. The prosecution presented witnesses, including Alberto Loquez (brother-in-law of the victim) and Teresita Rendal (victim’s wife), who testified that they heard a gunshot, saw Edgar by his house window pointing a gun at Deogracias on the road below, and witnessed Edgar fire a second shot. They also stated that after the shooting, Edgar and his brother Quirino moved the victim’s body to the balcony stairs, and Edgar threatened bystanders. Responding police officers testified that Edgar surrendered the gun, stating it was the weapon used. An autopsy confirmed the victim died from a gunshot wound to the head.
The defense claimed self-defense, asserting that Deogracias, who was drunk, challenged Edgar to a fight, pointed a gun at him, and during a struggle for the gun, it accidentally fired twice, hitting Deogracias. Defense witnesses included Edgar’s wife, his brother Quirino, and an alleged eyewitness, Ismael Barredo. A defense medico-legal expert opined the wounds could have been inflicted during a struggle.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Edgar of Homicide but acquitted him of illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Edgar appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the rejection of his self-defense claim.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Edgar Gerasta’s conviction for Homicide by giving credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and rejecting his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with modifications to the damages awarded. The Court held that the prosecution proved Edgar’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were consistent, credible, and corroborated by physical evidence. The witnesses had no ill motive to falsely testify, and their accounts were more plausible than the defense’s version. The claim of self-defense was rejected because Edgar failed to prove unlawful aggression by the victim; the defense’s narrative of a sudden armed attack was inconsistent with the evidence showing the victim was shot from an elevated position (Edgar’s window) and not during a close struggle. The surrender of the gun to police did not prove innocence but indicated consciousness of guilt. The Court modified the damages: Edgar was ordered to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as temperate damages in lieu of funeral expenses (since actual damages were not fully proven). The award of exemplary damages was deleted for lack of aggravating circumstances.