People v. Demonteverde
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 21, 1993, at the Rumbohan Beer Garden in Sara, Iloilo, SPO1 Rufino Demonteverde, who was on duty but in civilian attire, confronted Henry Canindo for causing a disturbance. Demonteverde frisked Canindo and his companions, including the deceased Mario Ancuña, Jr., and beat Canindo with his handgun. When Ancuña, Jr. and Enrique Publico (who later also died) questioned Demonteverde's actions, Demonteverde, who was about an arm's length away, fired three shots, hitting Ancuña, Jr. and Publico. Demonteverde then pointed his firearm at the crowd, dared them, and fled the scene. Ancuña, Jr. died instantly from a gunshot wound to the chest involving the heart and left lung. Procedural History: Two informations were filed against Demonteverde for the murders of Ancuña, Jr. and Publico. The case for Publico's murder was dismissed. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Iloilo City, found Demonteverde guilty of murder for the killing of Ancuña, Jr., sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs. Demonteverde appealed. The Petition: Accused-appellant SPO1 Rufino Demonteverde sought reversal of the RTC decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that he acted in self-defense, and that there was no treachery in the killing of Ancuña, Jr.
Issue(s)
Whether the killing of Mario Ancuña, Jr. was qualified by treachery, thus constituting murder. Whether accused-appellant acted in self-defense. Whether accused-appellant was on duty at the time of the incident; and the classification of the crime.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Regional Trial Court. It found accused-appellant Rufino Demonteverde guilty of homicide, not murder, and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The conviction for homicide and the civil indemnities were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of treachery: The Court ruled that treachery was not present in the killing of Mario Ancuña, Jr. Treachery requires that the offender employs means, methods, or forms tending directly and specially to insure the execution of the offense without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. In this case, the appellant and the victim were face to face when the shooting occurred. The encounter was unintended and preceded by a series of events, including a spat with a companion and the appellant frisking the group while holding a gun, which forewarned the victim of aggression. The shooting occurred on sudden impulse, preceded by acts of hostility that put the deceased on guard, thus depriving the act of the element of deliberate adoption of a mode of attack intended to ensure impunity. The victim was not completely unaware of and totally deprived of a chance to ward off or escape the assault. Treachery cannot be deduced from presumptions and must be proven as fully as the crime itself. On the issue of self-defense: The Court rejected the claim of self-defense, finding that the elements thereof were not met. The Court agreed with the trial court that the victim and his companions were not armed with knives and were not about to attack the appellant when he fired his gun. The appellant initiated the confrontation and was known to be a police officer, holding a handgun while frisking the men. It was difficult to believe that the men would arm themselves with knives and attack the appellant under these circumstances. Even assuming the men were armed with knives, this alone does not constitute unlawful aggression, and the shooting was not a reasonable means to prevent or repel it, especially since the knives were no match for the appellant's firearm and he sustained no injuries. The absence of unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity rendered the claim of self-defense untenable. On the issue of whether the appellant was on duty and the classification of the crime: The Court affirmed the finding of the lower court and the prosecution that the appellant was on duty on the night of the incident and was drinking at the Rumbohan Beer Garden. The Court noted that drinking liquor while on duty constitutes conduct unbecoming a police officer, which is subject to administrative sanction. However, even if he were not a customer, the Court held that in shooting Ancuña, Jr., the appellant acted beyond the bounds of his authority and must be held liable for the consequences. Based on the absence of treachery, the Court concluded that the killing of Ancuña, Jr. was simple homicide, not murder. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code punishes homicide with reclusion temporal. In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty is an indeterminate sentence with a minimum within the range of prision mayor and a maximum of reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Main Doctrine
The killing of Mario Ancuña, Jr. was qualified as homicide and not murder, as the prosecution failed to prove treachery. The accused, a police officer, was found to have acted beyond the bounds of his authority, and his claim of self-defense was rejected due to the absence of unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed.