People v. Tesorero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Wilfredo Tesorero, a Philippine Constabulary soldier detailed as a security guard, was convicted in four criminal cases: murder of Eduviges Tapia and Apolonio Torrente, attempted murder of Zosimo Tapanan, and attempted murder with physical injuries of Amador Teston. Prior to the incident on November 12, 1969, Tesorero had several confrontations with Amador Teston, a political opponent. On the day of the incident, Tesorero, who was reportedly AWOL, surrendered to Sgt. David Cabrera. While drinking at the house of Eduviges Tapia, a confrontation arose between Tesorero and Teston regarding Tesorero's surrender arrangements. Heated words were exchanged, and Tesorero then drew his Garand rifle and fired at the people inside the house, resulting in the death of Eduviges Tapia and Apolonio Torrente, and injuries to Zosimo Tapanan, Amador Teston, Meliton Arcilla, and Salvador Beraquit. Procedural History: The trial court convicted appellant Wilfredo Tesorero of murder in two cases and attempted murder in two other cases, imposing penalties of life imprisonment and indeterminate sentences, respectively, and ordering indemnification to the heirs of the deceased. The Petition: Appellant contended that he was not responsible for the deaths and injuries, suggesting other armed men might have fired their guns. He also argued that the trial court erred in not holding that he acted in legitimate self-defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in holding appellant criminally responsible for the death of Eduviges Tapia and Apolonio Torrente and for the injuries sustained by Zosimo Tapanan, Amador Teston, Meliton Arcilla, and Salvador Beraquit. Whether the trial court erred in not holding that appellant acted in legitimate self-defense. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in the commission of the crimes.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the offenses and penalties. The Court ruled that appellant was guilty of Homicide for the deaths of Eduviges Tapia and Apolonio Torrente, and Attempted Homicide for the injuries sustained by the other victims. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was found to be absent. The penalties were reduced accordingly, and the indemnification amounts were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of criminal responsibility for the deaths and injuries: The Court found no factual basis for the appellant's contention that other armed men fired their guns. Eyewitness testimonies, including those from defense witnesses, consistently identified appellant Tesorero as the sole perpetrator who fired his Garand rifle. The presence of bullet holes and the trajectory of the bullets corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The Court also addressed the appellant's argument regarding the size of the wound of entrance on Eduviges Tapia, explaining that wound size can be affected by factors such as ricochet, deformation of the bullet, and the distance of the discharge, especially with high-velocity projectiles. The issue of the missing slug was also resolved, with the Court finding no deliberate suppression of evidence by the prosecution, as the slug had been in the possession of both the defense and prosecution at various times without proper safekeeping or presentation. Therefore, the appellant was held responsible for the gunshot wounds sustained by all the victims. On the issue of legitimate self-defense: The Court reiterated that to invoke self-defense, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim must first be proven. The appellant's uncorroborated testimony that Board Member Teston attempted to enter his room and that Meliton Arcilla fired at him was rendered implausible by the testimonies of defense witnesses who stated that the appellant was the one who first fired his weapon. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving self-defense rests on the accused, who must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's case. Since the appellant failed to establish unlawful aggression, the plea of self-defense was denied. On the issue of treachery: The Court found that the evidence did not justify the application of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. While the attack was sudden, it did not appear that the aggressor consciously adopted a mode of attack intended to facilitate the commission of the crime without risk to himself. The witnesses for the prosecution admitted that the appellant and the victims began with an apparently cordial interaction. The decision to shoot was sudden, arising from a heated argument between Tesorero and Teston. The Court cited previous rulings stating that a sudden and unexpected attack does not automatically constitute treachery if the aggressor did not consciously adopt a method to ensure the commission of the crime without risk. Therefore, absent treachery, the crimes were reclassified from murder to homicide and from attempted murder to attempted homicide.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide and attempted murder to attempted homicide, finding that treachery was not present. The Court also clarified principles regarding wound ballistics and the burden of proof for self-defense.