People v. Sanchez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Guillermo Sanchez, a barangay captain, was charged with Murder for the fatal shooting of Fernando Visperas on March 9, 1987, during a barangay fiesta. The information alleged that Sanchez, with intent to kill and with treachery, shot Visperas twice with a firearm, causing injuries that led to his death. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court found Sanchez guilty of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P30,000.00 as civil indemnity. Sanchez appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused appealed, alleging that the death was accidental and caused by the deceased's illegal acts and aggression, and that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of Murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of Fernando Visperas was accidental and whether the accused is guilty of Murder. Whether treachery was present in the commission of the offense. Whether there were mitigating or aggravating circumstances. On the penalty and civil indemnity.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It found the accused guilty of Homicide, not Murder, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of five (5) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the death was accidental and the accused is guilty of Murder: The Court found the appellant's version of the shooting incredible. The eyewitness testimony of the victim's son, Hadji Visperas, corroborated by Abraham Visperas, indicated that the appellant shot the victim twice without warning. The Court noted inconsistencies between the appellant's counter-affidavit and his testimony at trial, as well as the absence of any mention of a struggle or shooting in the police blotter entries, which instead detailed the appellant being mauled by the deceased and his companions. The Court concluded that the mauling of the appellant preceded the shooting, and that the appellant armed himself and returned to avenge the injury. On the presence of treachery: The Court ruled out the presence of treachery. It reasoned that the shooting was frontal, as indicated by the entry wounds on the victim's body. Furthermore, the Court found that the shooting was preceded by an assault upon the appellant, who was a barangay captain and thus a person in authority. This assault constituted sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party immediately preceding the act, which negates treachery. On the mitigating and aggravating circumstances: The Court found the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation under Article 13, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. No aggravating circumstances were found. Consequently, the crime committed was homicide, not murder. On the penalty and civil indemnity: The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. In view of the presence of a mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed the minimum period of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was set as an indeterminate sentence. The civil indemnity was increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with recent Supreme Court decisions.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide, finding that treachery was absent due to sufficient provocation preceding the fatal act, and increased the civil indemnity.