People v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Irving Flores y Dichoso was charged with Murder and violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm) for an incident occurring on July 6, 1991. The prosecution alleged that Flores, a security guard, while apparently drunk, emerged from the Mariposa Bed Factory and fired upon Edwin Alberto and Demetrio Mendoza as they were returning home after disposing of garbage. Alberto was struck by a bullet and died from hemorrhage due to a lacerated lung. Mendoza, who survived, identified Flores as the assailant. Procedural History: The cases were tried jointly before the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172. The trial court acquitted Flores of illegal possession of a firearm, finding that the weapon was properly licensed and he had authority to possess it. However, Flores was found guilty of murder for the death of Edwin Alberto and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with indemnification to the heirs. This decision led to the present appeal by the accused-appellant. The Petition: The accused-appellant, Irving Flores y Dichoso, filed an appeal, assigning two main errors. First, he contended that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, arguing that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable and that there was no established motive. Second, he argued that even if found liable, he should only be guilty of homicide with the mitigating circumstances of incomplete justification and voluntary surrender. The Supreme Court, however, found that treachery was not present, thus modifying the conviction to homicide, and denied the claims of incomplete justification and voluntary surrender, affirming the unlawful aggression originated from the accused-appellant.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, considering the elements of treachery. Whether the accused, assuming guilt, should be convicted only of homicide with the mitigating circumstances of incomplete justification and voluntary surrender, and whether voluntary surrender was properly invoked.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. The Court affirmed the finding of guilt but ruled that treachery was not present, thus the crime was not murder. The Court also denied the presence of the mitigating circumstances of incomplete justification and voluntary surrender. The accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Edwin Alberto in the amount of P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Conviction for Murder): The Supreme Court agreed with the accused-appellant that the crime committed was not murder, but homicide. The Court found that the mere fact that the victim was shot at the back while attempting to run away did not per se qualify the crime to murder. The evidence showed that the accused-appellant, apparently drunk, emerged from the factory and fired upon the victim and his companion. Sensing danger, the two started to run. The second gunshot hit the victim at the back, causing his death. However, with the first gunshot, the victim was placed on guard and had attempted to escape. Therefore, there could be no treachery since the victim was forewarned of the danger and had attempted to flee. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the accused-appellant consciously and deliberately employed a specific form of attack that would ensure its commission without impunity. The Court reiterated that treachery requires that the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. On Issue 2 (Conviction for Homicide with Mitigating Circumstances): The Supreme Court found that none of the mitigating circumstances alleged by the accused-appellant attended the commission of the crime. Regarding the claim of incomplete defense of property or rights of a stranger, the Court noted that unlawful aggression is an essential element, and in this case, the evidence established that the accused-appellant was the aggressor. The defense's version of the incident, where the victim and companions were attempting to scale the factory fence, was found to be uncorroborated and contrary to ordinary human experience, especially considering the late hour and the presence of armed guards. The Court found it inconceivable that the victim and his alleged companions would insist on entering the factory at nearly midnight, and that they would resort to climbing the fence in the presence of armed guards. The Court was satisfied that the prosecution sufficiently proved the culpability of the accused-appellant, who, under the influence of liquor, emerged from the factory and recklessly fired at the first people he saw. The Court also rejected the plea of voluntary surrender, stating that the police authorities came to the factory looking for the accused-appellant, who was pointed out to them. Seeing the police approaching, he had no choice but to go with them, and no surrender was made. Therefore, the crime was homicide, with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, warranting the medium period of reclusion temporal.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide, finding that treachery was not sufficiently proven as the victim was forewarned and attempted to escape before the fatal shot. The Court also clarified that voluntary surrender requires a spontaneous act of yielding to authorities, not merely accompanying them when approached.