People v. Aliviado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: At around 12:30 a.m. on October 17, 1986, the accused-appellant, Mario Aliviado, approached Ramon Akil and his son Erwin, inquiring about a certain Boy Tisoy. Ramon obliged Aliviado's request to accompany him to an alley to look for Boy Tisoy. Erwin followed and heard a gunshot. He saw Aliviado shoot his father from behind. Aliviado fled. Erwin approached his father. Jaime Abejo, a barangay tanod, arrived to help carry the wounded Ramon. Aliviado returned on a motorcycle and shot Jaime Abejo, then fled again. Ramon Akil died later that day. Jaime Abejo sustained fatal wounds but survived due to timely medical intervention. Procedural History: The accused-appellant was convicted of murder and frustrated murder by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. He appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the RTC's decision, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial and in finding him guilty of murder and frustrated murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial. Whether the accused-appellant proved the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Whether treachery and evident premeditation were present in the commission of the crimes. Whether moral damages should be awarded to Jaime Abejo.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed, and the challenged decision of the RTC is affirmed with a modification. The appellant is ordered to pay Jaime Abejo moral damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for a new trial: The Court found no error in the denial of the motion for a new trial. The grounds for the motion, namely, alleged negligence of counsel and newly discovered evidence, were found to be without merit. The counsel de oficio had exerted efforts to present a witness, but the witness failed to appear. Furthermore, the proposed newly discovered evidence, consisting of the testimony of the appellant's brother-in-law, could have been discovered and presented during the trial with reasonable diligence, and its potential testimony would have been merely cumulative. The Court reiterated that if an accused fails to prove self-defense by his own testimony, cumulative or corroborative evidence cannot improve his position. On the claim of self-defense: The Court held that the appellant failed to prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. The essential requisites of self-defense, namely, unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation, were not established. The appellant's claim of unlawful aggression was not credible, especially considering that one of the alleged assailants was not drunk, and the deceased Ramon Akil was found to be negative for alcohol. Furthermore, the appellant's subsequent conduct, including throwing away the firearm, failing to report the incident, and fleeing to avoid arrest, strongly indicated guilt rather than justification. Flight is considered a silent admission of guilt. On treachery and evident premeditation: The Court affirmed the trial court's appreciation of treachery. The appellant shot Ramon Akil from behind and Jaime Abejo while the latter was carrying the wounded Ramon Akil. These acts were performed without warning and without risk to the appellant, as the victims were defenseless and in no position to avoid the attack. The Court did not explicitly discuss evident premeditation in its final ruling but the information alleged it, and the conviction for murder implies its presence or the presence of treachery which qualifies the killing to murder. On moral damages for Jaime Abejo: The Court found that moral damages should be awarded to Jaime Abejo. The gunshot wound inflicted by the appellant caused severe injuries to his stomach, pancreas, left kidney, and spinal column, which could have been fatal without timely medical intervention. These injuries undoubtedly caused him physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, and serious anxiety. Therefore, the Court awarded P25,000.00 as moral damages, considering that an appeal opens the whole case for review and the trial court did not exercise its discretion on this matter.
Main Doctrine
The claim of self-defense is negated by the accused's subsequent conduct, specifically the throwing away of the firearm, failure to report the incident, and flight to avoid arrest. Flight is considered a silent admission of guilt. Treachery was appreciated as the appellant shot the victims unexpectedly and without warning, from behind or while they were incapacitated, without risk to himself.