People v. Fullante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 5, 2011, at approximately 3:30 AM, Rochelle Saliente-Solomon (Rochelle) was at Gwenbay Resto Bar in Naga City with friends Joan M. Tejero, Niña L. Maralag, and Sherwin Agna. Accused-appellant PO2 Ricardo Fullante and seven co-accused—Dante Ante, Jr., Roger Sabolarse, Melvin Fullante, Jeffrey Sabolarse, Charlie Pasadilla, Herman Sabolarse, and Argie Rozaldo—were drinking at an adjacent table. Anthony Solomon (Anthony), Rochelle's husband, arrived to pick her up; as Rochelle stood, Anthony stepped back, prompting accused-appellant to tap Anthony's arm, after which his group mauled Anthony—Dante punched and held him, Melvin and Argie grabbed his arms, Dante kicked him. Surrounded and fallen, accused-appellant drew his service handgun, shot Anthony at the left temple, causing him to fall; Rochelle crawled toward him but was blocked. Accused-appellant then shot Anthony multiple times (right arm, elbow, back, thigh), Roger stabbed him, the group fled, but accused-appellant stayed, held Anthony's head, shot his nape, then shot Rochelle in the right thigh as she embraced her dying husband. Anthony died of hemorrhagic shock from multiple close-range gunshot wounds (six entry wounds with powder burns); Rochelle survived after treatment. Accused-appellant claimed self-defense: Anthony blocked exit, brandished knife, attacked despite police identification, leading to grappling and shots in defense; co-accused gave varying accounts of drunkenness, no prior knowledge of gun, fleeing after shots. Procedural History: Separate Informations for Attempted Murder (Crim. Case No. 2011-0517, Rochelle) and Murder (Crim. Case No. 2011-0518, Anthony) were filed against all eight accused, alleging conspiracy, intent to kill, and abuse of superior strength. Accused pleaded not guilty; cases consolidated. RTC (Branch 27, Naga City) on October 1, 2014 convicted Fullante of Attempted Homicide (4 months arresto mayor to 4 years prision correccional; damages to Rochelle) and Murder (reclusion perpetua; damages to Anthony's heirs); acquitted most co-accused of main charges but convicted four of slight physical injuries. Fullante appealed to CA (CR-HC No. 07267), which on November 27, 2017 affirmed convictions with modifications (temperate damages to Rochelle P25,000 + P20,000 moral; Murder damages adjusted, all with 6% interest; penalty as 20y1d reclusion perpetua min to 40y max). Fullante appealed to SC. The Petition: Accused-appellant argued self-defense against Anthony's alleged knife attack, denying intent to kill Rochelle (accidental stray bullet), challenging abuse of superior strength and conspiracy, disputing credibility of prosecution witnesses, and claiming disproportionate prosecution evidence reliance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction beyond reasonable doubt for attempted homicide (against Rochelle), rejecting self-defense and considering intent to kill. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction beyond reasonable doubt for murder (against Anthony), rejecting self-defense, and appreciating abuse of superior strength; and the corresponding penalties/damages.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. CA Decision affirmed with modification: (a) Crim. Case No. 2011-0517 - Guilty of Attempted Homicide, penalty 4 months arresto mayor (min) to 4 years prision correccional (max), indemnify Rochelle P25,000 temperate + P20,000 moral damages at 6% interest from finality; (b) Crim. Case No. 2011-0518 - Guilty of Murder, penalty reclusion perpetua (indivisible, corrected from CA's indeterminate range), indemnify Anthony's heirs P193,860 actual + P75,000 each civil indemnity, moral, exemplary damages at 6% interest from finality.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction beyond reasonable doubt for attempted homicide (against Rochelle), rejecting self-defense and considering intent to kill: Accused-appellant invoked self-defense, shifting burden to prove by clear, convincing evidence the elements under Article 11(4) RPC: (1) unlawful aggression by victim (actual/imminent threat to life/limb); (2) reasonable necessity of means to repel; (3) lack of sufficient provocation (or not proximate cause) - per People v. Escobal (820 Phil. 92, 2017). Prosecution discharged quantum via consistent eyewitness accounts (Rochelle, friends, neutral waiter Norbert) showing accused-appellant initiated by tapping Anthony then group mauling unarmed victim; no proof of Anthony's aggression/knife, belied by autopsy (six close-range gunshot wounds to temple, nape indicating victim lowered/vulnerable position). RTC/CA credibility findings entitled to great respect absent overlooked facts (People v. Ibañez, G.R. No. 231984, July 6, 2020); multiple wounds excessive for police officer trained in 'maximum tolerance' (no unlawful aggression = no justification, People v. Lopez, Jr., 830 Phil. 771, 2018). Even assuming aggression, six shots disproportionate (People v. Guarin, G.R. No. 245306, Dec. 2, 2020). Thus, positive identification and medical evidence prevail over accused's uncorroborated testimony. Animus necandi via external acts: handgun fired close-range at prostrate, defenseless Rochelle embracing husband (lethal weapon, conduct post-killing, victim position - Serrano v. People, 637 Phil. 319, 2010); non-fatal wound irrelevant due to timely aid (Art. 6 RPC). No qualifiers to attempted murder proven (e.g., no treachery beyond superior strength, not applied); RTC/CA correctly downgraded from info's attempted murder. On Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction beyond reasonable doubt for murder (against Anthony), rejecting self-defense, and appreciating abuse of superior strength; and the corresponding penalties/damages: Present as group (8 vs. 1 unarmed) mauled Anthony into weakness, then accused-appellant (armed police) shot multiple close-range times, exploiting superiority in numbers/weapon/training (Art. 248 RPC); not mere numerical but overpowering vulnerability, qualifying homicide to murder. Reclusion perpetua indivisible (Art. 63 RPC; no mods), straight imposition (People v. Lucas, 310 Phil. 77, 1995); damages per prevailing jurisprudence (P75,000 each indemnity/moral/exemplary, actual proven; temperate for Rochelle).
Main Doctrine
For self-defense to justify a killing or wounding, the accused bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim posing imminent threat to life or limb; (2) reasonable necessity of the means used to repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation proximately causing the aggression. The prosecution's credible eyewitness testimony, corroborated by independent witnesses and medical evidence like close-range powder burns and fatal wound locations (temple, nape), prevails over the accused's self-serving denial, especially when the accused initiated the aggression. Abuse of superior strength qualifies the crime to murder where a group mauls an unarmed victim into vulnerability before a police officer delivers multiple close-range gunshots, exploiting training and firearm against a defenseless target. Intent to kill in attempted homicide is established by firing a lethal handgun at close range into an unarmed, prostrate victim embracing her dead husband, regardless of the wound's non-fatality due to medical intervention. Reclusion perpetua, as an indivisible penalty for murder post-RA 9346, is imposed without duration reference or indeterminate sentence in the absence of modifying circumstances.