G.R. No. L-3384 February 14, 1951
EL PUEBLO FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. CARLOS HOLLERO, acusado-apelante.

FACTS

Before the incident, there were already strained relations between Floro Arcosa, the Chief of Police of Bacolod City, and the accused, Carlos Hollero, who was the head of the city’s secret police division. The day before the incident, the Chief of Police sent the accused a memorandum (Exhibit H) calling his attention to four secret policemen who failed to report for duty as ordered, stating that the accused, as division head, should ensure his subordinates performed their duties and impose discipline. Attached were a complaint from the guard corporal (Exhibit H-2) and a copy of the order (Exhibit H-1) for the four policemen to explain their absence. On October 21, 1948, around 8 a.m., the accused assembled his subordinates in his office, spoke about the inefficiency of some policemen, and emphasized that all reports and actions of his division must pass through and be sanctioned by him. The Chief of Police, having arrived at his office, asked for the previous day’s memorandum and ordered Policeman Nicolas Ferrer to call the accused. The accused, whose office was adjacent, heard the order. Immediately, the accused went to the Chief’s office with his service revolver in hand. Upon arriving in front of the Chief’s desk, he said, “I am here: What do you want?” The Chief, who was reading the memorandum, looked up. At that precise moment, the accused, without any danger to his person, fired six successive shots at close range with his .45 caliber service revolver. Three shots caused fatal wounds, and the Chief died immediately while seated in his chair (Exhibit C). The accused then presented himself to the Mayor, stating he had shot Chief Arcosa, surrendered, and handed over his revolver (Exhibit J). The autopsy (Exhibit A-1) revealed five gunshot wounds. As a defense, the accused claimed he acted in self-defense, alleging that the Chief stood up, uttered “Son of a gun, you!”, and reached for his revolver, leading the accused to believe he was in danger.

ISSUE

The main issue is one of credibility: whether the accused’s claim of self-defense is credible or whether the killing constituted murder (asesinato) committed with treachery (alevosia).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding the accused guilty of murder. The defense of self-defense was rejected for the following reasons: (1) The trajectory of the bullets, as established by the medical findings, showed the victim was seated when shot, not standing in a threatening posture as claimed. The bullet that entered the right eyebrow traveled downward, and the bullets that entered the hypochondriac and hypogastric regions also indicated the shooter was standing over a seated victim. (2) A cigarette butt was found between the index and middle fingers of the victim’s right hand, making it improbable he was drawing his revolver. (3) The defense witnesses did not spontaneously reveal their version of events to investigators at the scene, unlike the prosecution witnesses, suggesting their testimony was a later fabrication. (4) The Chief of Police had no motive to attack the accused; he had superior administrative means to reprimand him. In contrast, the accused was demonstrably agitated after the memorandum and his meeting with subordinates. The killing was committed with treachery, as the victim, who had called for the accused, was unarmed, unsuspecting, and defenseless when suddenly shot. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due to the victim on account of his rank as the accused’s superior was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the Mayor. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, an indemnity of P5,000 to the victim’s heirs, and costs were affirmed, with the addition of the accessory penalties provided by Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code.