G.R. No. L-36186 October 29, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORBERTO QUINTO, alias OBET, ROMEO IBIAZ, RENATO DIUSEN, alias DAGOL, defendants, NORBERTO QUINTO and ROMEO IBIAZ, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Norberto Quinto and Romeo Ibiaz, policemen of Rosario, Cavite, along with Renato Diusen, were charged with the murder of Vicente Ballestamon. On the evening of June 16, 1971, in Barrio Sapa, the appellants, in fatigue uniform, stopped a tricycle carrying Ballestamon. They ordered him to alight, raise his hands, and after he took a few steps, fired successive shots at him. Ballestamon’s mother, Rosalina, arrived to find her son wounded and surrounded by the three armed men. When she pleaded for his life, appellant Quinto stated it was the mayor’s command and, despite her pleas to take him to the hospital, Quinto fired another shot at the prostrate victim. The apparent motive was that Ballestamon was a witness to a prior killing involving the mayor’s son.
At trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness Antonio Giron, who detailed the coordinated actions of the appellants. Appellant Quinto admitted to the killing but claimed self-defense, alleging he and Ibiaz were ordered to apprehend Ballestamon, who was reportedly armed and firing shots. They asserted that upon arrival, Ballestamon pointed a gun at them, prompting Quinto to shoot first.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants of murder, rejecting their claim of self-defense and finding conspiracy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The claim of self-defense was untenable. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Appellants failed to establish unlawful aggression. The paraffin test on the victim was negative for gunpowder residue, contradicting the claim he was firing a weapon. The eyewitness account of Antonio Giron, corroborated by the victim’s mother, established that the unarmed victim was summarily executed after being ordered from the tricycle, with his back turned to the appellants. This sequence negates any imminent attack from the victim.
The Court found conspiracy, which need not be proven by prior agreement but can be inferred from the concerted actions of the accused towards a common purpose. The appellants arrived together in uniform, jointly accosted the victim, and collectively fired upon him. Their coordinated conduct before, during, and after the shooting demonstrated a unity of purpose to kill Ballestamon. The presence of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender warranted the imposition of reclusion perpetua instead of the death penalty.