People v. Makalangan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant admitted to shooting and killing Moro Banto. He claimed self-defense, alleging he surprised his wife, Mora Kalima, in the act of committing adultery with the deceased. If this were true, he would be entitled to the benefits of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Lanao found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, with accessory penalties, indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, and costs. The Appeal: The appellant appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The primary issue on appeal was whether the appellant's claim of surprising his wife in the act of adultery with the deceased could be considered a justifying circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby absolving him of criminal liability or mitigating the offense.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant successfully established the presence of a justifying circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the killing was qualified by treachery, constituting murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for murder, modified the sentence to conform with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and ordered the payment of costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the burden of proof rests upon the defendant to establish any circumstance that may relieve him from criminal responsibility or mitigate the offense, especially after admitting the commission of the act. In this case, the lower court found that the deceased was not with the appellant's wife or near her when he was shot. This finding was based on the testimony of three witnesses whose veracity was deemed beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented by the defense was insufficient to overcome the prosecution's positive testimony, thus failing to establish the claimed justifying circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. On Issue 2: The Court agreed with the Solicitor-General that the crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery. Treachery was established because the deceased was shot while unarmed and unprepared for the aggression. The circumstances under which the shooting occurred tended to ensure the success of the attack without any risk to the defendant, fulfilling the definition of treachery as provided in the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for murder under Article 248 is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, but the lower court imposed a lesser sentence based on Section 106 of the Administrative Code for Mindanao and Sulu. The Court modified the sentence to conform to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing a penalty of not less than six years and one day of prision mayor and not more than twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal.
Main Doctrine
In criminal cases where the accused admits the commission of the act resulting in death, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to establish any justifying circumstance that may relieve him from responsibility. The crime of murder is qualified by treachery when the victim is attacked without any possibility of defense and under circumstances that guarantee the offender's safety.