GR 177000; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177000 June 19, 2017
NESTOR GUELOS, RODRIGO GUELOS, GIL CARANDANG and SP02 ALFREDO CARANDANG y PRESCILLA, Petitioners vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
FACTS
On June 4, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Rolando Camacho and SP02 Estelito Andaya, responding to reports of indiscriminate firing in Barangay Boot, Tanauan, Batangas, proceeded to the residence of Silveria Guelos. There, they confronted a group, including petitioners, who were drinking. As P02 Edgardo Carandang (a prosecution witness) attempted to collect empty shells as evidence, he was assaulted. He witnessed Nestor Guelos shoot SP02 Andaya while Gil Carandang held the victim. He further saw Alfredo Carandang restrain P/C Insp. Camacho from behind while Rodrigo Guelos grabbed the officer’s firearm, enabling Nestor to shoot and kill Camacho.
The defense presented a different account, claiming the police officers were the aggressors who attempted to extort money and fired shots first, leading to a shootout. They alleged the killings were in self-defense. The Regional Trial Court convicted all petitioners of two counts of Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Homicide under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions in toto.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioners’ conviction for the complex crime of Direct Assault with Homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the legal qualification of the crimes. The Court held that the trial court and the CA correctly found conspiracy among the petitioners based on their coordinated actions in restraining the police officers and enabling the fatal shootings. However, the Court disagreed with the characterization of the offenses as the complex crime of Direct Assault with Homicide under Article 148.
The legal logic is that for Direct Assault under Article 148 to be complexed with Homicide, the assault—the act of violence against the person in authority—must itself be the very act that causes death. Here, the evidence established distinct acts: the acts of holding or restraining the victims (the assault upon agents of authority) were separate from the acts of shooting them (the homicide). Since these were separate acts, they constitute two separate crimes. Therefore, petitioners should be convicted separately for Direct Assault under Article 148 and for Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, applying the rules on complex crimes under Article 48. The penalties were imposed accordingly. The Court also awarded exemplary damages to the victims’ heirs.