People v. Borreros
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 8, 1990, in Quezon City, Virgilio Borreros allegedly shot Federico G. Medina and Danilo E. Almario. The Information charged Borreros with Murder qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, and Homicide. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that Borreros, carrying a gun, approached the victims who were watching a mahjong game, shot Federico Medina in the forehead at close range, and then fired several more shots, resulting in the death of both victims. Autopsies revealed multiple gunshot wounds on both victims. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 225, Quezon City, found Virgilio Borreros guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder for the killing of Federico G. Medina, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The RTC also found him guilty of Homicide for the killing of Danilo E. Almario, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. The RTC also ordered the accused to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each victim. The Petition: Accused-appellant Virgilio Borreros appealed the RTC decision, contending that the RTC erred in not considering the justifying circumstance of self-defense, in finding that treachery attended the killing of Federico G. Medina, and in ordering him to pay civil indemnity for the deaths of both victims.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Whether treachery attended the killing of Federico G. Medina and Danilo Almario. Whether the award of civil indemnity for the death of each victim is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the accused-appellant Virgilio Borreros guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and Homicide. The Court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for Murder and an indeterminate penalty for Homicide, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity for the death of each victim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of self-defense: The Court ruled that the accused-appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving self-defense. Unlawful aggression, a prerequisite for self-defense, was not established. The Court found the appellant's narrative of events, including returning to the scene of the incident to retrieve golf balls, to be contrary to human experience and behavior. Furthermore, even if there was initial aggression, it ceased when the appellant disarmed Federico Medina, after which the appellant became the aggressor. The nature and number of gunshot wounds sustained by the victims, particularly the multiple wounds on Danilo Almario's back, made the theory of self-defense implausible and evinced a determined effort to kill. The appellant's flight and subsequent hiding for three years also negated his plea of self-defense, as flight is considered evidence of consciousness of guilt. On the issue of treachery in the killing of Federico G. Medina and Danilo Almario: The Court held that treachery was established in the killing of Federico G. Medina. The prosecution witnesses consistently testified that the appellant, carrying a gun, approached Federico Medina while the latter's attention was on the mahjong game. Upon turning his face, Federico was shot on the forehead. This sudden and unanticipated attack, under circumstances where the victim was unprepared to defend himself, constituted treachery, even though the attack was frontal. The essence of treachery lies in the deliberate, swift, and unexpected manner of the attack, affording the victim no chance to resist or escape. However, the Court ruled that treachery did not qualify the killing of Danilo Almario. While the evidence showed Danilo was shot from behind, this circumstance alone is not conclusive of treachery. The prosecution failed to provide particulars on how the attack on Danilo began and developed, and treachery cannot be presumed. The witnesses admitted they took cover after the first shooting and only heard subsequent gunshots, thus failing to establish the manner of Danilo's attack and whether it insured the assailant's safety from any defense the victim could have mounted. On the issue of the award of civil indemnity: The Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of each victim. Following prevailing jurisprudence, such an award is proper for the death of each victim, without the need for proof of damages.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for Murder and Homicide, holding that the elements of self-defense were not sufficiently proven, treachery qualified the killing of Federico G. Medina, and flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt. The award of civil indemnity for the death of each victim was upheld.