G.R. No. 89684 September 18, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERARDO SAZON, alias “INSIK,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Gerardo Sazon was charged with murder for the death of Wilfredo Longno. The prosecution’s evidence established that two days prior to the killing, Sazon threatened Longno after a confrontation. On the evening of September 17, 1983, Sazon and his cousin, Cornelio Altejos (at large), were drinking when they saw Longno pass by. They followed him to a public bench. Sazon then pointed a gun at Longno, who dared him to shoot. Sazon fired, hitting Longno’s forearm. As Sazon and the wounded victim grappled for the gun, Altejos stabbed Longno in the chest. The assailants fled, and Longno died from the stab wound.
Sazon admitted shooting Longno but pleaded self-defense. He claimed Longno first drew a gun and fired at him, injuring his finger, prompting his defensive shot. He asserted that Altejos intervened and stabbed Longno during their struggle without his prior knowledge or consent.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether Sazon acted in self-defense; and (2) whether conspiracy existed between Sazon and Altejos to hold Sazon liable for the fatal stabbing.

RULING

The Supreme Court rejected the plea of self-defense. When an accused admits the killing, the burden shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance. The core element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was not established. Sazon’s testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated. He claimed Longno fired at him at close range, yet he could not identify the type of gun used. This, coupled with the prosecution witnesses’ credible account of Sazon’s prior threat and his act of initiating the aggression by pointing his gun first, negated any unlawful aggression from the victim. Thus, self-defense failed.
However, the Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not proven, as the two-day interval between the threat and the killing did not conclusively show the accused had sufficient time to calmly reflect upon his criminal design. Nevertheless, conspiracy was established. The acts of Sazon and Altejos—following the victim together, Sazon’s initial shooting, and Altejos’ stabbing during the ensuing struggle—demonstrated a unity of purpose and concerted action to inflict harm. Conspiracy having been proven, the act of one is the act of all. Sazon is thus equally liable for the fatal wound inflicted by his co-conspirator. The penalty was adjusted accordingly, and the civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.