People v. De Jesus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 21, 1978, Nilo de Jesus and Wilfredo Yalong were charged with Murder for the killing of Feliciano de los Santos. A third individual, Peter Doe, was also charged but not brought to trial. The prosecution presented Fernando de los Santos, the victim's son, as the sole eyewitness. Fernando testified that he saw Yalong aiming a gun at his father, fired at him, and then de Jesus grabbed the gun and fired the fatal shot. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital, with the autopsy revealing two gunshot wounds, one fatal to the chest. Both appellants went into hiding after the incident and were arrested months later. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Quezon City convicted Nilo de Jesus and Wilfredo Yalong of Murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. Both appellants appealed. The Petition: The defendants-appellants appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of Nilo de Jesus for murder has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Whether Wilfredo Yalong is guilty of murder or homicide, and whether the killing was attended by treachery. Whether Wilfredo Yalong is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense or the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. On the crime committed and penalty.
Ruling
The judgment of conviction as to appellant Nilo de Jesus was reversed, and he was acquitted. With respect to appellant Wilfredo Yalong, the judgment was modified; he was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty of four years of prision correccional to eight years of prision mayor, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P12,000.00, and to pay costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of Nilo de Jesus: The Court found the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Fernando de los Santos, to be riddled with inconsistencies and inherent incredibilities, casting grave doubt on its veracity. The Court noted discrepancies in Fernando's account regarding the initial shout, the time he gave his statement to the police, his proximity to the incident, and his actions immediately after his father was shot. Furthermore, the Court found that the presence of both appellants at the scene was coincidental, there was no prearranged plan, and only Yalong was armed, which contradicted the theory of conspiracy. The explanation for going into hiding, citing threats from the deceased's son who was a police officer, was deemed sufficiently satisfactory. Consequently, the Court concluded that de Jesus' guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt and ordered his acquittal. On the guilt of Wilfredo Yalong and the presence of treachery: The Court found the testimony of the appellants more convincing than that of the sole eyewitness regarding who fired the fatal shot. Yalong admitted to firing two shots, one of which was fatal. The Court did not find the qualifying circumstance of treachery present. Treachery requires that the method of attack be consciously and deliberately chosen to insure execution without risk to the offender. The Court reasoned that Yalong's decision to shoot appeared sudden, brought about by the deceased's unlawful aggression (attempting to stab Yalong with a dagger). The killing was on the spur of the moment, with no time for deliberation. The close range of the shooting (five inches) was seen as negating treachery, as it implied a risk to the offender, not an assurance of safety. On self-defense: The Court acknowledged that Yalong acted in self-defense against the unlawful aggression of the deceased, who was armed with a dagger. However, the Court found that the means employed by Yalong (firing two shots) were not proven to be reasonably necessary, especially considering the deceased was drunk and his aim was faulty. Therefore, the Court granted the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. This led to the imposition of a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed for homicide. On the crime committed and penalty: Due to the absence of treachery, the crime was classified as homicide, not murder. Applying the principle of incomplete self-defense and Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide (reclusion temporal) was reduced by one degree to prision mayor. The Court imposed the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, which translates to four years of prision correccional to eight years of prision mayor. The indemnity to the heirs was reduced from P15,560.00 to P12,000.00.
Main Doctrine
The Court acquitted Nilo de Jesus due to reasonable doubt, finding no conspiracy and insufficient evidence of his participation in the killing. For Wilfredo Yalong, the Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide, recognizing incomplete self-defense due to the deceased's unlawful aggression but finding the means used not entirely reasonable. Treachery was not present as the act was on the spur of the moment.