People v. Besana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 3, 1964, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Arsenio Besas (barrio captain) and Romeo Graboso were walking along railway tracks. They were unarmed and returning from a visit. Unknown to them, appellant Eduardo Besana, Jr. (a policeman) and his companion Antonio Bayugos (also a policeman) were on patrol in the same area, investigating a prior robbery. The two police officers spotted Besas and Graboso from a distance, took cover, and ordered them to halt. Graboso froze and raised his hands, but Besas panicked and ran. Appellant chased Besas, firing his carbine and hitting Besas twice in the leg. Graboso identified Besas as "Pare Arce" and stated he had no fault. Besas died on the way to the hospital. Procedural History: The appellant was found guilty of murder by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment, with indemnity and costs. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant claimed self-defense. The prosecution argued for murder, citing the victim's unarmed status and the infliction of injuries from behind while fleeing.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant successfully established the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present to sustain a conviction for Murder. Whether the accused-appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the offense to homicide. The penalty was adjusted to imprisonment for not less than 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor nor more than 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal. The indemnity for the heirs of the victim was increased to P12,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that self-defense was not established because the accused failed to prove unlawful aggression. By pleading self-defense, Besana admitted the killing, thereby shifting the burden of proof to him to show that the victim attacked him or placed him in imminent danger. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the victim was unarmed; the .22 caliber revolver presented by the defense was found only the morning after the incident and was linked to Besana's prior possession by a defense witness, Panfilo Bayoneta. Applying People v. Yuman, the Court held that since unlawful aggression was absent, the other elements of self-defense could not exist. On Issue 2: The Court held that the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder, because treachery was not proven. Treachery cannot be presumed; it must be shown that the accused purposely and consciously chose a mode of attack to ensure the victim's inability to defend themselves. In this case, the meeting was casual and impulsive, and there was no evidence that Besana had a previous determination to kill Besas. Citing People v. Tumaob, the Court emphasized that the mere fact that the victim was shot from behind while fleeing does not constitute treachery if the attack was not deliberately sought out to eliminate risk. On Issue 3: The Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Besana. The records showed that Besana assisted in bringing the deceased to the hospital immediately after the shooting and subsequently proceeded to the municipal building where he was placed under arrest. Applying Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code and the ruling in People v. Hanasan, the Court found these actions sufficient to mitigate the penalty for Homicide.
Main Doctrine
The claim of self-defense was not sufficiently established as unlawful aggression was not proven. The killing was classified as homicide, not murder, due to the absence of treachery and the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.