People vs. Bautista

G.R. No. 109800 (March 12, 1996)

SC downgraded Wilfredo Bautista's murder conviction to homicide, citing lack of qualifying circumstances.

Facts:

On April 2, 1992, at around 10:00 PM, Alfonso Davila y Velasco, a flight steward for Philippine Airlines, attempted to enter the Inflight Center of PAL located at MIA Road, Pasay City. His entry was halted by Gayak Usman y Adzed, a security guard from the Asian Security and Investigation Agency, who informed Davila that he could not enter because he lacked a PAL sticker. Davila showed Usman his identification card, which led to a verbal confrontation between them.

During this altercation, Wilfredo Bautista y Nieles, another security guard assigned at the same location, intervened. Bautista questioned Davila's actions towards Usman, to which Davila responded dismissively. Bautista then took Usman's shotgun, cocked it, and approached Davila. Despite Davila's verbal warning to Bautista to not interfere, Bautista shot Davila in the head, resulting in his death.

A post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Valentine T. Bernales confirmed that Davila died from a gunshot wound to the head. Bautista, along with Usman and several others, was charged with murder, with the prosecution alleging treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the crime committed by Bautista constituted murder or homicide.
  2. Whether the elements of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength were present in the commission of the crime.
  3. Whether Bautista could invoke self-defense or any mitigating circumstances to reduce his liability.

Arguments:

For the Prosecution:

  • The prosecution argued that Bautista acted with treachery, evident premeditation, and took advantage of superior strength when he shot Davila. They contended that Bautista's actions were deliberate and calculated, as he cocked the shotgun before shooting Davila, indicating a premeditated intent to kill.

For the Defense:

  • Bautista's defense claimed that he should only be charged with homicide, arguing that he acted under a mistake of fact, believing Davila was reaching for a gun inside his car. He also asserted that he lost his composure due to Davila's aggressive behavior towards Usman. Bautista sought to establish mitigating circumstances such as passion and obfuscation, as well as voluntary surrender.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court found Bautista guilty of homicide rather than murder. The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the qualifying circumstances necessary for murder. Specifically, the court noted:

  • Treachery: The court found that the victim was aware of the impending danger when Bautista approached him with the shotgun. The victim's remarks indicated that he was not caught off guard, which negated the element of treachery.

  • Evident Premeditation: The court determined that there was no evidence showing that Bautista had a premeditated intent to kill. The suddenness of the shooting and the lack of prior planning indicated that the act was not premeditated.

  • Abuse of Superior Strength: The court concluded that the fatal shot was fired by Bautista alone, and there was no evidence of conspiracy or cooperation with Usman to exploit superior strength.

The court acknowledged Bautista's admission of guilt and the lack of evidence supporting his claims of self-defense. It ruled that the defense's arguments were inconsistent and did not meet the burden of proof required to establish self-defense or mitigating circumstances.

Ultimately, Bautista was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six years, four months, and ten days of prision mayor minimum to twelve years, six months, and twenty days of reclusion temporal minimum, with no civil indemnity awarded due to the victim's heirs reserving their right to file a separate civil action.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The distinction between murder and homicide hinges on the presence of qualifying circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength.
  • The burden of proof lies with the accused to establish any mitigating circumstances once guilt is admitted.
  • Self-defense requires the presence of unlawful aggression, which must be real and imminent, not merely perceived.