People vs. Hubilla

G.R. No. 114904 (January 29, 1996)

Facts:

Accused-appellants Demetrio Hubilla, Jr. and Salvador Palle, both members of the Citizen Armed Force Geographic Unit (CAFGU) stationed in Sta. Cruz, Casiguran, Sorsogon, were charged with the murder of Antonio Rosas. The incident occurred on June 14, 1991, when the victim was walking along a feeder road. Witness Reynaldo Halcon testified that he saw the accused confront Rosas, demanding that he lower his hoe. When Rosas did not comply, Hubilla shot him near his feet. As Rosas attempted to flee, Hubilla shot him again, this time fatally wounding him. The victim's widow, Consuelo Rosas, corroborated the events leading to her husband's death, stating that she found him dead shortly after being informed by Halcon.

The prosecution's evidence included the autopsy report, which indicated that Rosas died from a gunshot wound. The defense, however, presented a different narrative, claiming that Rosas attacked them with a hoe, prompting Hubilla to shoot in self-defense after Rosas allegedly attempted to use Hubilla's rifle against him. Both accused claimed they acted out of fear for their lives.

The trial court found the accused guilty of murder, citing the presence of treachery and evident premeditation, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, along with civil indemnity to the victim's heirs.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the evidence supporting the accused's claim of self-defense.
2. Whether the trial court correctly found the presence of treachery and evident premeditation in the commission of the crime.

Arguments:

Prosecution:

• The prosecution argued that the eyewitness testimony of Reynaldo Halcon was credible and clearly established the sequence of events leading to Rosas's death.
• The prosecution contended that the actions of the accused demonstrated conspiracy, as both were armed and acted in unison to intimidate and ultimately kill the victim.
• The prosecution maintained that the claim of self-defense was implausible given the disparity in arms between the victim (armed with a hoe) and the accused (armed with M-14 rifles).

Defense:

• The defense asserted that the accused acted in self-defense, claiming that Rosas attacked them first with a hoe, which justified their use of firearms.
• They argued that the physical evidence, including the autopsy report, supported their version of events, indicating that Rosas was facing Hubilla when shot.
• The defense contended that the trial court's rejection of their self-defense claim was unfounded and that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court upheld the trial court's finding of guilt but modified the charge from murder to homicide. The court reasoned that while the evidence did not support the presence of treachery or evident premeditation, the actions of the accused constituted unlawful killing.

The court emphasized that for self-defense to be valid, the accused must prove:

1. Unlawful aggression by the victim.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The court found that the accused failed to establish these elements, particularly the claim of unlawful aggression, given the significant disparity in weaponry. The court also noted that the victim had been forewarned of the attack, undermining the claim of treachery.

The court concluded that the killing was not premeditated and that the encounter was spontaneous, thus reducing the charge to homicide. The accused were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, taking into account the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

• The burden of proof in self-defense lies with the accused once they admit to the killing.
• The presence of conspiracy can be inferred from the actions of the accused, even if one did not directly inflict the fatal blow.
• Treachery requires that the victim be caught off guard, which was not the case here, as the victim was warned before the attack.