G.R. No. 180219; November 23, 2011
VIRGILIO TALAMPAS y MATIC, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging Virgilio Talampas y Matic with homicide for the killing of Ernesto Matic y Masinloc on July 5, 1995, in Biñan, Laguna. The prosecution presented eyewitness Jose Sevillo, who testified that Talampas, armed with a revolver, alighted from a bicycle, poked the gun at Eduardo Matic and fired, hitting Eduardo. As Eduardo sought refuge behind Ernesto, Talampas fired three more times, with one shot hitting Ernesto in the back and another hitting Eduardo on the nape, resulting in Ernesto’s death. Other witnesses testified on Ernesto’s livelihood, the autopsy results, and the impact of his death on his family. Talampas interposed the defenses of self-defense and accident. He claimed that Eduardo Matic, not Ernesto, was his enemy; that Eduardo hit him with a monkey wrench; that they grappled for the wrench; that he noticed Eduardo had a revolver; that they struggled for the revolver, which accidentally fired and hit Ernesto; that the revolver fired again, hitting Eduardo in the thigh; that he then seized the revolver and shot Eduardo in the head; and that he fled the scene. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Talampas of homicide, rejecting his defenses and crediting the testimony of eyewitness Jose Sevillo. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Talampas’s conviction for homicide by rejecting his claims that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that he acted in self-defense or that the death was accidental.

RULING

The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.
Firstly, the plea of self-defense requires: (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means to repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation by the accused. Talampas failed to prove these elements. The unlawful aggression must come from the victim, Ernesto. The circumstances established that Talampas initiated the attack against Eduardo, and Ernesto was merely present. Neither Eduardo nor Ernesto committed any unlawful aggression against Talampas. Therefore, his plea of self-defense is unwarranted.
Secondly, the defense of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code requires that a person is performing a lawful act with due care, and an injury results accidentally, without intention. The records show no accident. Talampas brandished and fired his revolver at Eduardo, who sought refuge behind Ernesto. Talampas then fired thrice, hitting Ernesto in the back and Eduardo on the nape. These acts were criminal assaults, not lawful acts done with due care.
Thirdly, the fact that Talampas’s intended target was Eduardo, not Ernesto, does not excuse him. The fatal hitting of Ernesto was the direct consequence of Talampas’s felonious assault. This constitutes aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow), which does not exempt from or mitigate criminal liability under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s factual findings and its rejection of the defenses. The CA also correctly deleted the award of temperate damages as actual damages were awarded, the two being mutually exclusive.