G.R. No. L-58506 November 19, 1982
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NILO DE JESUS and WILFREDO YALONG, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Nilo de Jesus and Wilfredo Yalong, were charged with Murder for the killing of Feliciano de los Santos. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of Fernando de los Santos, the victim’s son. He testified that on May 21, 1978, he saw Yalong aim and fire a gun at his father. While his father was still standing, de Jesus then grabbed the gun from Yalong and fired another shot, causing the victim to fall. The victim died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Both appellants fled after the incident. De Jesus was arrested months later in Pangasinan, while Yalong was arrested in Manila after moving between several provinces.
The defense presented contrasting versions. De Jesus claimed the victim was drunk and aggressive, attacking him with a dagger, and that Yalong fired shots in self-defense. Yalong, in his extrajudicial statement, admitted firing his gun but claimed he did so because the victim, armed with a dagger, was about to attack de Jesus. He asserted he acted in defense of his co-accused.

ISSUE

The core issues were the credibility of the eyewitness testimony and the proper classification of the crime—whether it constituted Murder or Homicide, and whether the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger applied.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Nilo de Jesus but convicted Wilfredo Yalong of the lesser crime of Homicide. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Fernando de los Santos credible and sufficient to establish Yalong’s criminal act of shooting the victim. However, it rejected the prosecution’s claim of treachery, noting the evidence showed a prior quarrel and a frontal attack, which did not satisfy the criteria for alevosia. Thus, the crime was Homicide, not Murder.
Regarding Yalong’s claim of defense of a stranger (de Jesus), the Court found this circumstance was not proven. The requisites for justifying circumstances were not established with clear and convincing evidence. There was no proof that the means Yalong employed—shooting the victim—was reasonably necessary to repel an alleged attack. Consequently, this defense was unavailing. However, considering Yalong’s voluntary surrender, the Court applied the mitigating circumstance under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code. This, with no aggravating circumstances, led to the imposition of the penalty one degree lower than that for Homicide, resulting in a sentence of prision correccional to prision mayor. De Jesus was acquitted due to reasonable doubt, as the lone eyewitness testimony was insufficient to prove his participation beyond moral certainty.