Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-31225 June 11, 1975 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PA LO SAMONTE, JR., defendant-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Acting Assistant Solicitor General Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. and Solicitor Antonio M. Martinez for laintiff!a ellee. A olinario R. "illostas for defendant!a ellant.

MA!ASIAR, J.: Sentenced to death for murder b the Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh !udicial "istrict, accused-appellant Pablo Samonte, !r., a member of the Metrocom detailed #ith the CAA, insists in his invocation of the $ustif in% circumstance of self-defense. &he Solicitor 'eneral submits that appellant is %uilt onl of homicide (pp. )-*+, Appellee,s brief, p. *-., rec./. &here is no dispute as to the fact that the deceased A%ustin Santia%o, !r., #as fatall shot b the appellant Pablo Samonte, !r. at about **01+ in the evenin% of !ul 2., *343, durin% a #a5e bein% held at . 6entanilla Street, Pasa Cit , for the death of Pablo Samonte, Sr., father of herein defendant-appellant. At about the aforementioned time and date, the deceased, in the compan of !esus " , "avid Pa%ula an, An%elito Caras and others, a%reed to attend the #a5e and to e7tend their condolences to the famil of the departed father of defendantappellant (pp. 1--, 22, &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/. 9pon arrival at the house #here the #a5e #as bein% held, the %roup seated themselves outside the house and did not bother to %o upstairs in order to vie# the remains then l in% in state (p. *:, rec./. &he %roup sta ed #ithin the premises of the #a5e for about thirt minutes and after e7tendin% their s mpathies #ith the brother of defendant-appellant, the started to leave (p. *2, &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/. !esus " , #ho #al5ed ahead of the %roup, suddenl heard somebod shoutin%, ;Ambot, hu#a%, Ambot, hu#a%<; (Ambot is the nic5name of appellant Pablo Samonte, !r./ and then a %unshot follo#ed. =hen he turned around to see #hat the commotion #as all about, he sa# A%ustin Santia%o, !r. fall (p. ., &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/.#$% h&#.'(t >e further sa# defendant-appellant Pablo Samonte, !r. holdin% a .-. caliber pistol (pp. 4-:, &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/. "efendant-appellant after havin% fired the shot, ran a#a (p. :, &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/. &hereafter, !esus " and his friends brou%ht to the Philippine 'eneral >ospital the bleedin% A%ustin Santia%o, !r., #ho #as pronounced dead on arrival (pp. 4-), &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/. &he shootin% incident #as reported that same ni%ht to the Pasa Cit Police "epartment (p. 12, &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/. Police Ser%eant Calderon, Patrolman ?e ba and Patrolman Morales, assi%ned to the case, proceeded to the scene of the crime about *0++ in the mornin% and tal5ed to the brother of herein defendant-appellant, #ho confirmed the shootin% thus reported. &he #ere li5e#ise informed that the victim #as brou%ht to the Philippine 'eneral >ospital. &he also %athered from #itnesses that one Pablo Samonte, !r. #as the one #ho shot the victim (pp. 12-11, &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/.#$% h&#.'(t At the scene of the incident, the police officers #ere able to recover an empt .-. caliber shell and a . 22 caliber palti5 beside it (p. 1-, &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/. &he investi%ators then proceeded to the Philippine 'eneral >ospital and to the funeral parlor, #here the vie#ed the remains of the deceased (pp. 4-:, &.s.n., 8ctober *1, *343/. ?ater, the police officers located the companions of the deceased that fateful ni%ht, namel , !esus " , "avid Pa%ula an and An%elito Caras, all of #hom e7ecuted their s#orn statements before S%t. Calderon, the @iscal and Pat. ?e ba (pp. :3, &.s.n., 8ct. *1, *343A E7hibits ;C;, ;"; and ;E;, pp. ).-):, CCC rec./.

&he follo#in% da , !ul 24, *343, the bod of the deceased A%ustin Santia%o, !r. #as brou%ht to the National Bureau of Bnvesti%ation for autops . "r. !esus Crisostomo, NBB Medical Supervisor, conducted the autops on the bod of the deceased and thereafter e7ecuted a necrops report #hich contained the follo#in% findin%s0 ;'unshot #ound0 *. Entr C left mammar re%ion, 4.. ems. left of anterior median line and *2..+ cms. above left heelA rou%hl oval, *.. D *.* cms. includin% contusion collarA directed to the ri%ht almost horiEontall and ver sli%htl bac5#ardA involvin% the left -th intercostal space, the ri%ht ventricle of the heartA ri%ht dome of the diaphra%m and lo#er lobe of ri%ht lun% before ma5in% an e7it, at the ri%ht infra-a7illar re%ion, rou%hl stellate, *.3 7 *.. cms. Re-entr , medial aspect, middle, third, arm ri%ht, 2 7 *.. cms. #ith muscular involvement onl . 6isceral or%ans C pale. >eart and stomach C empt . 777 777 777 Cause of death C 'unshot #ound perforatin% the chest and ri%ht arm. 777 777 777 (E7h. ;B;, p. 3*, CCC rec./. "r. !esus Crisostomo testified that the %unshot #ound found on the bod of the deceased #as caused b a .-. caliber bulletA that the shot must have been fired at a distance be ond 2- inches and less than 1- inches from the person of the deceasedA and that the assailant #as probabl on the left side of the deceased (pp. :-3, &.s.n., 8ctober *4, *343/. Bn order to effect the arrest of the accused, the police officers, informed that defendant-appellant #as a member of the Metrocom on detail #ith the CAA, proceeded to the office of the CAA to inFuire as to the #hereabouts of the accused. &he #ere ho#ever told that the accused had previousl applied for a leave of absence and that despite the e7piration thereof, he failed to report for dut (pp. 1:-1), &.s.n., 8ctober 4, *343/. &he #ere also able to elicit from Ma$or Custodio of the CAA that the accused left the CAA three (1/ da s after the shootin% incident and #as reportedl %iven a mission order (p. *-, &.s.n., 8ctober *1, *343/. 9nable to contact the accused, the police filed the case before the @iscal,s 8ffice (p. *., &.s.n. 8ctober *1, *343/.#$% h&#.'(t 8n September *4, *343, a #arrant of arrest #as issued for the apprehension of the accused (p. 4, CCC rec./. >o#ever, no earnest efforts #ere e7erted to enforce the aforesaid #arrant of arrest. Bndi%nant over the dela , !ud%e 8nofre 6illaluE ordered the Chief of Metrocom to e7plain #h he should not be declared in contempt of court for dela in% the administration of $ustice (p. -, CCC rec./. An e7planation satisfactor to the Court #as eventuall made b the chief of Metrocom (p. 23, CCC rec./, #ho #as ho#ever ;advised to be more obedient to the la#ful orders of this Court ...;, for the Metrocom could have effected the immediate arrest of the accused had it e7erted efforts to do so, ;considerin% the vast manpo#er and the adeFuate facilities %iven the Metrocom Command; (p. -., CCC rec./. 8n September 2., *343, defendant-appellant returned to Manila from Ba%uio Cit #here he alle%edl undertoo5 the mission assi%ned to him and thereafter surrendered to a certain ?t. Caballo of the Philippine Constabular on detail #ith the CAA (pp. 1+-1*, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/. 8n September 24, *343, the person of the accused #as turned over to the Metrocom b the CAA, after #hich the accused #as brou%ht immediatel before the trial court (p. 1+, CCC rec./. At the arrai%nment held the follo#in% mornin%, defendant-appellant, dul assisted b counsel de oficio, Att . @rancisco Salva, entered a plea of not %uilt (p. --, CCC rec./.#$% h&#.'(t "efendant-appellant Pablo Samonte, !r. testified thus0 that he is 1+ ears old, a staff ser%eant in the Philippine Air @orce, detailed #ith the Metrocom, and a veteran of the 6ietnam #arA that in the evenin% of !ul 2., *343, he #as in the house of his late father at No. . 6entanilla St., Pasa Cit , attendin% the #a5e for his deceased father (p. 1, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/A that #hile he #as in the upper stor of the house, attendin% to the condolers and s mpathiEers, one @ernando Cabardo came up and as5ed him to come do#n because somebod #as tr in% to create trouble b brea5in% a domino piece used b the condolers pla in% domino and threatenin% to brea5 the %uitar of another mourner #ho refused to %ive it to himA that he #ent do#n and sa# the deceased brandishin% a %unA that a companion #as tr in% to persuade the deceased to %ive him his %unA that that #as the first time he sa# the deceasedA that #hen he approached the deceased,

he smelled of liFuor and that he reFuested the latter to put a#a his %un since the %uests mi%ht be scaredA that the deceased pushed him, uttered the #ords, ;putan% ina mo;, pointed the %un at himA that he (appellant/ heard the clic5 of its tri%%er, but the %un ho#ever misfiredA that as he #as the sole support of his seriousl ailin% mother and fearin% for his o#n life if the deceased #ere to fire a%ain, he pulled his o#n %un and shot the deceased (pp. --., &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/A that his distance from the deceased at the time he fired #as about t#o (2/ feet and that he and the deceased #ere facin% each other (pp. *3-2+, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/A that he did not remember havin% thro#n his %unA that he $ust ran a#a from the scene of the shootin% to his house at Nichols Air Base (p. 2*, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/A that on the follo#in% da , he returned to the house of his deceased father to confer #ith his brothers and sisters #ith respect to the burial arran%ements and t#o da s thereafter, he a%ain #ent bac5 to attend the interment (p. 21, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/A that durin% all these visits, his brothers and sisters never informed him that he #as #anted b the police nor did the discuss the matter at all (pp. 21-2-, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/A that he #as not able to report the loss of his service pistol because he #as %iven a mission order to chec5 the smu%%lin% of blue seal ci%arettes in the Cit of Ba%uio (pp. 2--1+, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/A that he returned to Manila upon the completion of his mission on September 2., *343, and thereafter, surrendered to a ?t. Caballo (pp. 1+-1*, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/A and that he did not immediatel surrender to the authorities, ;because there #ere man people around the vicinit and B am Fuite sure that one of the cro#d #ill report the matter ...; (p. 1*, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/.#$% h&#.'(t =E find merit in defendant-appellant,s submission that the trial court erred in convictin% him of the crime of murder. As correctl pointed out b the Solicitor 'eneral, ;treacher cannot be presumed. Bt must be established be ond reasonable doubt. &reacher cannot be deduced from indicia nor from presumption. Bt must be proven b convincin% evidence. =hen the manner of attac5 #as not proven, the defendant should be %iven the benefit of the doubt and the crime should be considered homicide onl ; (People vs. Carpio, )1 Phil. .+3, .*2A People vs. Amansec, )+ Phil. -2-,-1./. Bt should be borne in mind that the attendance of treacher as a Fualif in% circumstance is found in the concurrence of t#o conditions0 (*/ the emplo ment of means, method or manner of e7ecution #hich #ould insure the offender,s safet from an defensive or retaliator act on the part of the offended part , #hich means that no opportunit is %iven the latter to defend himself or to retaliate (People vs. Casalme, *: SCRA :*:, :2+, People vs. Ramos, 2+ SCRA **+3, ***2-***1A People vs. Pen%Eon, -- Phil. 22-, 212A People vs. ?a%a ano, ?-*.34*-41, 8ctober 1*, *341A People vs. 'lore, ): Phil. :13, :-2/A and (2/ that such means, method or manner of e7ecution #as deliberatel or consciousl chosen (People vs. "adis, *) SCRA 433, :+*-:+2A People vs. Clemente, 2* SCRA 24*, 2:+/. &hus, it is not enou%h that the means, method or form of e7ecution tends directl and speciall to facilitate the commission of the offense #ithout dan%er to the offender arisin% from the defense or retaliation that mi%ht be made b the offended part . Bt is further reFuired, for treacher to be appreciable, that such means, method or form #as deliberated upon or consciousl adopted b the offender (People vs. &umaob, )1 Phil. :1), :-2/. As in the case at bar, such deliberate and conscious choice #as held non-e7istent #here the attac5 #as the product of an impulse of the moment (People vs. Macalisan%, 22 SCRA 433, :+-/. ?i5e#ise, the Fualif in% circumstance of evident premeditation is not present in the case under revie#. @or evident premeditation must have been manifest and must have been planted in the mind of the offender in order that it ma chan%e the nature of the 5illin% into murder. Bt cannot be appreciated in the absence of reflection and persistence in the criminal intent (People vs. Cada%, 2 SCRA 1)), 131/. &he records of the case contain no evidence sho#in% that the accused had, prior to the 5illin%, resolved to commit the same, nor is there proof that the shootin% of the victim #as the result of meditation, calculation or resolution. >e did not 5no# the deceased before the incident. 8n the contrar , a perusal of the testimonies of both prosecution and defense #itnesses lead to the conclusion that the shootin% incident #as, more or less, spontaneous. &he onl issue here is #hether accused-appellant Pablo Samonte, !r. acted in le%itimate self-defense. Since the appellant uneFuivocall admitted in open court that he fatall shot the deceased A%ustin Santia%o, !r., the onus of provin% #ith clear and convincin% proof the concurrence of all the elements of la#ful self-defense is thus shifted to him. (People vs. Guintab, *4 SCRA *-4/.#$% h&#.'(t &he evidence presented b the defense does not adeFuatel meet this burden. "efendant-appellant claims that after he had reFuested the deceased to put a#a his %un in order not to scare a#a the %uests at the #a5e, the deceased uttered the insultin% as #ell as libelous #ords, ;putan% ina mo;, pointed the %un at him, #hich, ho#ever, did not fire, althou%h he heard its tri%%er clic5A and since he #as afraid that he mi%ht be 5illed if he allo#ed the deceased to fire a second time, he pulled his o#n %un and fired at the latter (pp. --., &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/.

&his version of defendant-appellant is incredible. State #itness "avid Pa%ula an, the victim,s companion that ni%ht, declared that the victim did not carr a %un at the #a5e. Even defense #itness Ricardo Peralta never stated that the deceased pointed his %un at defendant-appellant, but merel testified that he ;sa# A%ustin Santia%o, !r. pull a %un and then he heard a %unshot and because of the shot, he ran a#a .; (p. :, &.s.n., 8ctober 23, *343/. Bf, as he claims, he #as facin% the victim #ho #as $ust about t#o feet a#a from him, the bullet #ould have entered frontall the chest and #ould have come out of the bac5 of the victim and #ould not have entered the left side of the chest and #ould not have come out of the ri%ht side of the breast and throu%h the ri%ht arm. As a peace officer, his dut #as to identif himself and to tell the trouble-ma5er to desist and to surrender his unlicensed firearm. >e should and could have arrested the victim for ille%al possession of firearm since it is ver patent that the .22 caliber (E7h. */ %un alle%edl held b the victim is home-made or a palti5. Bf defendant-appellant, b his o#n testimon , #as onl about t#o feet a#a from the deceased, he could have easil disarmed the deceased, #ho, #hile taller than he is, had a smaller build than his (p. *. &.s.n., 8ctober *1, *343/ and #as onl 2* ears old C 3 ears his $unior (p. *2, &.s.n., 8ctober *4, *343/ and #hose refle7es #ere slo# as he #as then drun5 (pp. .-4, &.s.n., 8ctober 2), *343/. Bein% a member of the Armed @orces and a 6ietnam veteran, the accused must have been full trained in the art of disarmin% an adversar . As a professional soldier #ith combat e7perience, he could have overpo#ered the inebriated victim #ho #as to#ards his ri%ht as testified to b the NBB doctor and as confirmed b the tra$ector and direction of the bullet #hich hit the victim. Even assumin% that the victim #as alread pointin% a %un at appellant, =E are not persuaded that appellant, #ho had his %un still tuc5ed in his #aist, could fire at the victim before the latter could sFueeEe the tri%%er of his o#n %un. &here is no sho#in% that the palti5 %un (E7h. */ #as loaded #hen found b the policemen that ni%ht of the incident. Neither #as a fin%erprint e7pert presented to testif as to #hether the fin%erprints, if an , on the palti5 %un, #ere those of the victim. "efendant-appellant,s failure to report the incident and to surrender to the Metrocom to #hich he belon%s or to his superior officer in the CAA or to an other la# enforcement a%enc , li5e#ise belies his claim of self-defenseA because if the 5illin% #as $ustified, he #ould have lost no time in so reportin% and so surrenderin%, so that the alle%ed palti5 %un alle%edl held b the victim could be sub$ected to ballistic and fin%erprint e7amination, before the same could be tampered #ith or before the fin%erprints thereon could be erased, to corroborate his claim of self-defense. Such omission is in direct contrast to his havin% t#ice returned to the place of the incident to ma5e arran%ements for the burial of his father and to attend his funeral before %oin% on an alle%ed mission a%ainst smu%%lin%. Even this alle%ed anti-smu%%lin% mission defies belief and appears as a convenient accommodation b his superior officer to himA because the ASAC, not the Metrocom nor the CAA, is the a%enc speciall created for this specific tas5. &he 5illin% of a civilian b a la# enforcer li5e appellant is dis%ustin% enou%h. But for him to fail to report the same and to surrender to the authorities, deserves condemnation. >e should set the e7ample for the ordinar citiEen to emulate. And the failure of the Metrocom to effect his immediate apprehension earlier than the ma7imum fifteen (*./ da s %iven b the court (p. 1., CCC rec./, after it #as informed b the CAA that appellant #as alle%edl sent on a mission to Ba%uio Cit , invites the unflatterin% suspicion that it #as tr in% to shield one of its men from prosecution. &he Metrocom has all the communication facilities to recall appellant from his alle%ed mission. &his suspicion is stren%thened b the fact that on September 24, *343 appellant #as apprehended b the Metrocom and turned over to $udicial custod onl t#o (2/ da s after the court directed on September 2-, *343 the chief of the Metrocom to sho# cause #h he should not be punished for contempt for dela in% the administration of $ustice (pp. --., *2-*., rec. of CCC/. Appellant,s remainin% a fu%itive from $ustice for about t#o months from !ul 2., *343 to September 2., *343 #hen he alle%edl surrendered to a certain PC ?t. Caballo also detailed #ith the CAA (pp. 1+-1*, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/, necessaril carries the earmar5s of %uilt. (People vs. &alumpa, 1 SCRA :*, :.A People vs. Siba an, 1* SCRA 2-4, 2-3A People vs. Balon%cas, * SCRA :2:, :1*/. As above intimated, defendant-appellant had sufficient opportunit to %ive himself up if he so desired. >e stated that after the 5illin%, he spent his leave of absence of five da s in his house at Nichols Air Base (p. 2., &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/.#$% h&#.'(t @urthermore, appellant li5e#ise testified that after the shootin% incident, he #ent bac5 to his father,s house to confer #ith his brothers and sisters about the burial arran%ements and attended the funeral. "urin% all these visits, he claimed that his o#n brothers and sisters never informed him that he #as #anted b the la# (p. 21, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/ in the face of the testimon of the police officers that the Fuestioned the persons present at the time of the incident and thereafter loo5ed for him at the CAA.

"efendant-appellant, in his vain attempt to fortif his plea of self-defense, presented as evidence the palti5 %un (E7h. */ alle%edl pointed to him b the deceased. And to sho# ho# his o#n life alle%edl hun% in the balance that tra%ic ni%ht, he demonstrated that a palti5 %un must be half-coc5ed before it is set for firin% (p. *:, &.s.n., 8ctober 2:, *343/. Bf that #ere so, then he had time to disarm the victim #ho #as drun5 and #ho #as obliFuel to#ards his ri%ht and not directl facin% him, #ithout need of shootin% the victim. And no person acFuainted or e7perienced #ith firearms, especiall #ith a palti5 %un, #as ever presented b appellant to stren%then his bid for acFuittal. Needless to sa , in a trial, it is necessar that the #eapon involved in a crime, be tested and demonstrated b one #ho has clearl sho#n that he is Fualified to %ive such testimon (@rancisco, Evidence, pp. 4.2-4.1/. &hus, his plea of self-defense is not supported b clear and convincin% proof (People vs. Berio, .3 Phil. .11, .14/. And the accused must rel on the stren%th of his o#n evidence and not on the #ea5ness of that of the prosecution (People vs. SolaHa, 4 SCRA 4+, 44/. >o#ever, the circumstances, under #hich the crime #as committed serve to attenuate the liabilit of defendant-appellant. &he demise of a loved one brin%s sorro# to each and ever member of the famil . And the #a5e #hich precedes the burial is one solemn occasion that evo5es respect and s mpath from those #ho share the feelin% of emptiness #hich death usuall brin%s. &he act of the deceased in creatin% trouble durin% the #a5e of the departed father of defendantappellant, #hile it does not full $ustif the tra%ed that has befallen him, cannot li5e#ise be condoned. Man traditions are less venerated b our people than a #a5e. Stirrin% trouble durin% a #a5e scandaliEes the mourners and offends the sensibilities of the %rievin% famil . &hat the deceased #as then drun5 has been testified to b Andres Santia%o, a chemist of the National Bureau of Bnvesti%ation. Santia%o declared, as confirmed b his o#n to7icolo% report, that he found the presence of eth l alcohol in the amount of +.*-. in the blood of the deceased. >e further opined that one #ho is not accustomed to drin5in% and #ho ta5es such amount of alcohol #ould tend to be a little bit unrul (p. ., &.s.n., 8ctober 2), *343/. #$% h&#.'(t &herefore, considerin% that the trouble created b the deceased #as both unla#ful and sufficient to infuriate accusedappellant, his %uilt is miti%ated b passion or obfuscation (People vs. 'ervacio, 2- SCRA 34+, 3::A People vs. ?a son, 1+ SCRA 32, 3.-34/, #hich #arrants the imposition of the applicable penalt for homicide in the minimum period. =>ERE@8RE, =E @BN" &>E APPE??AN& PAB?8 SAM8N&E, !R. '9B?&I BEI8N" REAS8NAB?E "89B& 8@ >8MBCB"E, @8R =>BC> >E BS >EREBI SEN&ENCE" &8 S9@@ER AN BN"E&ERMBNA&E &ERM 8@ BMPRBS8NMEN& RAN'BN' @R8M SBD (4/ IEARS AN" 8NE (*/ "AI 8@ PR)S)O* MA+OR, AS MBNBM9M, &8 &=E?6E (*2/ IEARS AN" 8NE (*/ "AI 8@ R,-L.S)O* /,MPORAL, AS MADBM9M, =B&> &>E ACCESS8RBES 8@ &>E ?A=, CRE"B&BN' >BM >8=E6ER =B&> >BS PRE6EN&B6E BMPRBS8NMEN& BN ACC8R"ANCE =B&> REP9B?BC AC& N8. 4*2:, &8 BN"EMNB@I &>E >EBRS 8@ &>E "ECEASE" A'9S&BN SAN&BA'8, !R. BN &>E AM89N& 8@ &=E?6E &>89SAN" PES8S (P*2,+++.++/ =B&>89& S9BSB"BARI BMPRBS8NMEN& BN CASE 8@ BNS8?6ENCI. &>9S M8"B@BE", &>E !9"'MEN& 9N"ER RE6BE= BS >EREBI A@@BRME" BN A?? 8&>ER ASPEC&S. S8 8R"ERE". Ma0alintal, -.J., -astro, Fernando, /eehan0ee, "arredo, Antonio, ,sg1erra, M1'oz!Pal2a, A31ino, -once cion, Jr. and Martin, JJ., conc1r.