G.R. No. L-17531; November 30, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORBERTO ROGALES, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Norberto Rogales was convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Masbate for the killing of his cousin, Aladino Besana, and was sentenced to cadena perpetua. The incident occurred around 10:00 PM on June 10, 1958, during a dance held in Balud, Masbate. The prosecution evidence established that Rogales suddenly appeared and, from a distance of about five brazas, fired two shots at Besana, who was a bystander. The first shot hit Besana, causing him to sink to a sitting position, while the second shot missed. Before succumbing to his wounds hours later at the hospital, Besana gave an ante mortem statement, thumbmarked with his own blood, identifying Rogales as his assailant and stating he had done him no wrong.
The appellant claimed self-defense, alleging that Besana, who was drunk and causing trouble, drew a gun. Rogales asserted he grappled for the weapon, and it discharged during the struggle, accidentally wounding Besana. To substantiate this, he and a witness performed a demonstration in court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly rejected the claim of self-defense and properly convicted Rogales of murder, qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court thoroughly rejected the claim of self-defense. The appellant’s version was deemed physically impossible and belied by the prosecution’s overwhelming evidence. The court observed that the demonstration by Rogales and his witness showed the gun pointed downward during the alleged struggle, which was inconsistent with the trajectory of the fatal bullet through Besana’s body as established by the autopsy. This inconsistency underscored the concocted nature of the defense.
The Court found treachery (alevosia) present. The attack was sudden, without any warning or provocation that could have given the victim an opportunity to defend himself. Rogales fired from a distance at an unsuspecting victim during a social gathering. The Court also clarified that proof of motive is not indispensable when the identity of the assailant is established by clear and positive evidence, as in this case. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion or obfuscation were correctly disregarded. Rogales went to the PC barracks merely to report the incident, not to surrender, and his claim that the victim was drunk was not sufficiently proven. While the trial court erroneously considered the aggravating circumstances of premeditation and nocturnity, the penalty remained reclusion perpetua, as treachery alone qualifies the crime to murder without any other modifying circumstance.