People v. Agravante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Joanes Agravante, Eddie Caballero, Arnuldo Belarmino, and Rosalito Abrea, all members of the CAFGU, were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur of three counts of Murder for the deaths of Danny Dela Torre, Pat. Edilberto Bastida, and Exuperio Acaba. The incident occurred on January 6, 1990, at the Public Market of Bansalan, Davao del Sur. The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses, Nelson Candia and Reynaldo Dizon, who testified that the appellants, armed with firearms, went to the Cebu La Suerte Bakery. After an altercation initiated by appellant Abrea regarding payment for bread, accused Agravante urged his companions to attack. The appellants and their co-accused then fired upon the victims, resulting in their deaths. Dr. Annabelle Yumang conducted postmortem examinations, confirming death by gunshot wounds. PFC Fulgencio Moreno investigated the scene and recovered slugs and shells. PFC Paulino Dador, Jr. testified on the recovery of a .38 caliber revolver fired inside the police station by accused Agravante. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur, Branch 21, Bansalan, Davao del Sur, convicted Arnuldo Belarmino, Rosalito Abrea, and Joanes Agravante of three counts of Murder, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victims. Eddie Caballero remained at large, and Joanes Agravante escaped during the trial. The Petition: Accused-appellants Arnuldo Belarmino and Rosalito Abrea appealed their conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in not finding that Belarmino's defense of stranger plea was sufficiently established, that Abrea took no part in the shooting, that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent, and that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence.
Issue(s)
Whether the defense of stranger plea of accused Arnuldo Belarmino was sufficiently established. Whether accused-appellant Rosalito Abrea took part in the shooting incident. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were replete with material inconsistencies and incredibilities. Whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellants Arnuldo Belarmino and Rosalito Abrea for three counts of Murder. The Court found no reversible error in the decision of the Regional Trial Court and ordered the payment of civil indemnity to the heirs of the victims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defense of stranger plea of Arnuldo Belarmino: The Court held that unlawful aggression is a sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of defense, whether of self, relative, or stranger. There can be no defense if the victim did not commit unlawful aggression. In this case, eyewitnesses clearly negated any commission of aggression against appellant Abrea, thus Belarmino had no basis to claim he was defending a stranger. The defense's version that Pat. Bastida suddenly drew a gun and aimed it at Abrea without provocation was found to be incongruous with reality and contradicted by the prosecution's credible eyewitness accounts. Therefore, the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger was not established. On the participation of Rosalito Abrea in the shooting incident: The Court found Abrea's participation to be established by the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. Candia testified that Abrea pointed to his name cloth and confronted the victims, and that after the initial shots by Belarmino and Agravante, Abrea took the fallen Bastida's pistol and shot the fleeing Acaba. The defense's argument that the presence of only one empty shell in Bastida's gun indicated it was not used in the shooting was dismissed as weak, as the absence of the shell could be accounted for by its intervening destruction. The Court gave credence to the positive testimonies of Candia and Dizon that Abrea shot Acaba using Bastida's gun. On the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies: The Court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses Nelson Candia and Reynaldo Dizon to be consistent in their material sense and essence, and coinciding for the most part. The Court addressed specific points raised by the appellants, such as Candia not testifying on what happened to his co-employees, the order of victims being shot, Bastida's reaction, Candia's position during the shooting, the number of shots heard, and Candia not running away, finding them to be either understandable, not detrimental to credibility, or based on reasonable expectations given human sensory frailties and the circumstances. Similarly, the Court found Dizon's testimony credible despite him being outside the bakery, his inability to recall the exact number of shots, and his tardiness in reporting, attributing the latter to fear of retaliation from the powerful CAFGU members. On whether the prosecution evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution had proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The killings were characterized by treachery, as the victims were unarmed and killed by surprise using means that insured the success of the assault without risk to the assailants. Conspiracy was also proven by the evidence showing Agravante egging his companions to attack, Belarmino agreeing, and Abrea looking at his companions who then commenced shooting. The concerted acts of the appellants and their co-accused demonstrated a common and joint purpose to kill the victims. The defense's version was deemed an out-and-out fabrication designed to shield appellants from liability and provide a justifying circumstance.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of appellants for murder, holding that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were credible and that the defense's version of events was incongruous with reality. The Court reiterated that unlawful aggression is a sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of defense of self, relative, or stranger, and found no unlawful aggression in this case. The Court also found that conspiracy was proven by the concerted acts of the accused aimed at a common design to kill the victims, and that the killings were characterized by treachery.