GR L 70306; (July, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-70306-07 July 30, 1986
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Victoriano Galo @ “Turing”, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s case, primarily through the testimony of Teofanes Noval, established that on the evening of October 18, 1983, in Ubay, Bohol, the accused Victoriano Galo shot Godofredo Noval, Jr. with a steel arrow while the latter was sleeping. Godofredo died from the wound. A struggle ensued between Teofanes and Galo over the weapon. Galo fled, but Teofanes pursued him. During a second struggle, Galo wrested back the arrow and wounded Teofanes on the left forearm before being stopped by a bystander. The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming the Noval brothers had robbed Galo’s store. Galo testified he was on his way to report the theft when he was attacked by two persons, and he acted purely in self-defense during a struggle over a steel rod, accidentally hitting one of his assailants.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether the killing of Godofredo Noval, Jr. constituted Murder and whether the wounding of Teofanes Noval constituted Attempted Homicide, or if the accused’s claim of self-defense was valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder but modified the conviction for Attempted Homicide to Less Serious Physical Injuries. The Court rejected the claim of self-defense for the killing of Godofredo. For self-defense to exculpate an accused, the evidence must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found the defense’s narrative of unlawful aggression by the sleeping victim inherently incredible. The trial court’s assessment of the prosecution witnesses as credible, and the physical evidence of the fatal wound inflicted on a sleeping and unarmed man, conclusively established the killing was not in self-defense. The Court also noted that pending theft and frustrated murder cases against the Noval brothers were irrelevant and inadmissible to prove the crimes charged against Galo.
Regarding the wounding of Teofanes, the Court appreciated incomplete self-defense, reducing the crime from Attempted Homicide to Less Serious Physical Injuries. The legal logic is that after the initial shooting, Galo’s flight showed a refusal to fight. When Teofanes pursued and grappled with him, Teofanes became the unlawful aggressor. The means Galo used to repel this aggression—wounding Teofanes’s arm—was reasonable. However, since Galo had given sufficient provocation by the initial fatal attack, the third element of self-defense (lack of sufficient provocation) was absent, making the defense only incomplete. Furthermore, the Court found no intent to kill Teofanes, as Galo desisted when told to stop, supporting the classification of the injury as less serious. The penalty was accordingly reduced.