G.R. No. 72199 November 29, 1989
Adelino Montanez y Rosas, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

On the evening of May 26, 1977, in Quezon City, petitioner Adelino Montanez, a security guard, approached Jose “Totoy” Agosto Labayo. Montanez, who was in uniform and allegedly intoxicated, was accompanied by fellow guard Ricardo Cayanong. Both men drew their firearms and pointed them at the victim. Montanez, with his gun poked near the victim’s chest, challenged him by saying, “sabihin mo lamang na papuputukin ko ito at papuputukin ko.” The victim defiantly replied, “hindi baleng paputukin mo, basta wala akong kasalanan.” Montanez then fired his gun, causing a fatal wound. He and Cayanong fled immediately after the shooting. The autopsy confirmed the gunshot wound was inflicted at close range, causing severe hemorrhage that led to death. Montanez was charged with homicide.
The trial court convicted Montanez of homicide, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and increased the indemnity. Montanez appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that his plea of self-defense should be sustained, that his extrajudicial admission was inadmissible, and that the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and intoxication should be credited.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Montanez’s conviction for homicide and in rejecting his defenses and claimed mitigating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction. The Court found no merit in Montanez’s claim of self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The evidence established that Montanez was the aggressor; he initiated the confrontation by pointing his gun and issuing a threat before firing. The victim’s verbal retort did not constitute unlawful aggression justifying a lethal response. The claim of self-defense thus fails.
Regarding the alleged inconsistencies in prosecution witness testimonies concerning Montanez’s exact words before the shooting, the Court ruled these were minor variances in detail that did not affect the witnesses’ core credibility. Such inconsistencies on trivial matters are even considered badges of truth. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight. The Court also found the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender inapplicable, as Montanez was apprehended by authorities and did not voluntarily surrender himself. The claim of intoxication was likewise rejected, as the evidence did not prove he was so inebriated as to diminish his intelligence and intent. The penalty and civil indemnity imposed by the appellate court were sustained as proper.