G.R. No. 39519 November 21, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee, vs. DANIEL PINTO, JR. and NARCISO BUENAFLOR, JR., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On December 25, 1970, police officers, including appellants Daniel Pinto, Jr. and Narciso Buenaflor, Jr., were deployed to serve a search warrant at the residence of Francisco Bello in Legazpi City. The team, traveling on foot at night, was positioned along a road when a jeep carrying several passengers, including Fr. Felix Cappellan, Mrs. Zenaida Tiongson, and her children, approached. According to prosecution witness Wilfredo Romero, a PC member attached to the team, he heard someone shout “Pondo!” followed by gunfire. He saw flashes of fire from the direction where appellant Buenaflor was positioned. The jeep was struck by the gunfire, resulting in the deaths of passenger Rosalio Andes, nine-year-old Richard Tiongson, and Francisco Bello (who was reportedly in the vicinity), and the serious wounding of Maria Theresa Tiongson.
The appellants denied firing at the jeep. They claimed the shooting was initiated by an unidentified person from the direction of Bello’s house, and they merely returned fire in self-defense and in the performance of duty. The trial court convicted them of three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua for each murder and an indeterminate penalty for frustrated murder.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of appellants Daniel Pinto, Jr. and Narciso Buenaflor, Jr. for the crimes of murder and frustrated murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The Court found the testimony of PC member Wilfredo Romero credible and sufficient to establish that appellants fired upon the jeep. Romero clearly testified that he saw flashes of fire from the precise location where Buenaflor was deployed, which was just before the burst of gunfire that hit the vehicle. This positive identification, coupled with ballistic evidence showing that bullets recovered from the victims matched the service firearms of the appellants, conclusively proved their direct participation. The Court rejected the defense of performance of duty and self-defense. The appellants failed to exercise the necessary precaution required of police officers. They fired upon an unidentified vehicle without any lawful provocation or justification, demonstrating reckless imprudence that amounted to a flagrant disregard of their duty to protect lives. The killing of the victims, who were innocent civilians, was attended by treachery as the sudden and unexpected attack deprived them of any opportunity to defend themselves. The modifying circumstance of voluntary surrender was correctly appreciated in favor of the appellants, but this did not mitigate the gravity of the offenses. The penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed.