People v. Malazzab
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 10, 1970, Primitivo Javier and his son Elmer were walking when they heard a gun report. They saw policeman Pedro Malazzab with guns. Malazzab, in a kneeling position, pointed his long gun at Primitivo and Elmer. Despite their pleas and raised hands, Malazzab fired successive shots, hitting Primitivo on the right thigh and left arm. Primitivo fell. Malazzab then approached Primitivo and shot him again in the right breast, causing his death. Malazzab then left the scene. Procedural History: Dr. Wilson Payaoan conducted a postmortem examination and detailed the gunshot wounds, concluding the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. An Information for Murder was filed against Pedro Malazzab. The trial court convicted Malazzab of Murder, qualified by treachery, with one mitigating and one aggravating circumstance offsetting each other, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs. The accused appealed. The Petition: The accused-appellant alleged that the trial court erred in believing the prosecution witnesses, in not finding that he acted in self-defense or in the performance of a duty, and in convicting him of murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in believing the prosecution witnesses despite alleged inconsistencies. Whether the accused-appellant acted in self-defense or in the performance of a duty. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of murder or homicide, and if guilty, what is the proper offense and penalty, considering the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the offense from murder to homicide. The penalty was adjusted to an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The indemnity to the heirs was increased to P30,000.00. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged inconsistencies of prosecution witnesses: The Court found no serious inconsistencies that would warrant discrediting the prosecution witnesses. Minor discrepancies in the description of the exact location of wounds or the direction of the accused after the incident were deemed understandable and did not affect the credibility of the witnesses, citing People v. Lambo, et al.. The Court clarified that Isidra Cabaccang could have seen the victim standing and raising his hands because she went out immediately after hearing the first gun report, before the victim was actually shot. On the claim of self-defense: The Court ruled that while there might have been unlawful aggression initially when the victim allegedly aimed his gun-like tube at the appellant, the subsequent successive shots fired after the victim was disabled and falling to the ground negated the reasonable necessity of the means employed. The unlawful aggression had ceased, and there was no longer any basis for self-defense. The Court cited People vs. Apolinario, People vs. Alconga, U.S. vs. Rivera, and People vs. Adviar in support of this ruling. On the offense committed and sentencing: The Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, thus the crime committed was homicide, not murder. The Court considered the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position, which was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed the penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The indemnity was increased to P30,000.00. While the shooting was sudden and unexpected, it was done frontally and in the open. The Court held that the suddenness of the attack, without more, does not suffice to establish treachery if the decision was made suddenly and the victim's helpless position was accidental. The mode of attack must be premeditated and not arise from unexpected events, citing People vs. Ardisa, People vs. Tumaob, People vs. Saez, and People vs. Abalos. Therefore, treachery was not present.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide, holding that while there was unlawful aggression initially, the subsequent shots fired after the victim was already disabled and falling did not constitute a reasonable necessity of the means employed, thus negating the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The Court also affirmed the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position, offset by voluntary surrender.