Rosales v. CA

G.R. No. 106229-30 (March 15, 1996)

Facts:

Leovigildo Rosales was charged with murder and illegal possession of firearms in connection with the death of Nilo Bulan. The incident occurred on September 26, 1982, when Rosales allegedly shot Bulan while the latter was defecating near a fishpond. Prosecution witness Francisco Buensalida testified that he and Bulan were on their way to collect bamboo poles when Bulan stopped to relieve himself. At that moment, Rosales approached from behind and shot Bulan with a shotgun, hitting him twice, with one shot coming from behind.

The autopsy conducted by Dr. Caridad T. Bulusan confirmed that Bulan died from internal hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds. Rosales, on the other hand, claimed he acted in self-defense, asserting that he fired a warning shot into the air to scare Bulan, who was trespassing on the fishpond he oversaw. He contended that Bulan then attempted to wrest the shotgun from him, resulting in an accidental discharge that hit Bulan.

The charge of illegal possession of firearms stemmed from Rosales's possession of an unlicensed 12-gauge shotgun. He claimed that the shotgun was given to him by the owner of the fishpond, Mateo Olindo, and that he had permission to possess it.

The trial court found Rosales guilty of homicide, ruling that treachery and evident premeditation were not present, as the killing was preceded by an argument. The court sentenced him to imprisonment and ordered him to indemnify Bulan's heirs. Rosales appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeals remanded the case for the retaking of testimonies from several defense witnesses due to lost records. After retaking some testimonies, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's conviction but increased the civil indemnity to Bulan's heirs.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether Rosales acted in self-defense during the incident that led to Bulan's death.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not finding treachery and evident premeditation in the killing.
3. Whether Rosales was denied due process due to the waiver of retaking testimonies of some defense witnesses.
4. Whether Rosales was guilty of illegal possession of firearms.

Arguments:

• For the Prosecution: The prosecution argued that Rosales's actions constituted murder, as he shot Bulan from behind and fired a second shot after Bulan had fallen. The prosecution maintained that there was no unlawful aggression from Bulan, and the circumstances indicated treachery.

• For the Defense: Rosales contended that he acted in self-defense, claiming that Bulan was trespassing and that he only fired a warning shot. He argued that the struggle for the gun was a reaction to Bulan's aggressive actions. Additionally, he claimed that he was denied due process when the Public Attorney's Office waived the retaking of testimonies from three witnesses.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Rosales failed to establish self-defense. The Court noted that the burden of proof shifted to Rosales once he claimed self-defense, and he did not demonstrate unlawful aggression on Bulan's part. The Court found that Bulan's act of grabbing the gun was not unlawful aggression, as it was a response to the threat posed by Rosales pointing the gun at him.

The Court also determined that treachery was present, as Rosales shot Bulan from behind, indicating a deliberate and calculated attack that posed no risk to himself. The eyewitness testimony and autopsy findings corroborated the prosecution's claims of treachery.

Regarding the due process argument, the Court ruled that the waiver of retaking testimonies did not equate to a guilty plea in a capital offense. The Court found that Rosales had ample opportunity to present his defense, and the absence of the other witnesses did not significantly impair his case.

The Court modified the conviction from homicide to murder, qualified by treachery, and imposed a sentence of reclusion perpetua. The conviction for illegal possession of firearms was affirmed.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The burden of proof shifts to the accused when self-defense is claimed, requiring the accused to establish the justification for the killing.
2. Treachery is established when the attack is executed in a manner that ensures the victim is defenseless and poses no risk to the assailant.
3. Waiving the retaking of testimonies does not inherently violate due process, provided the accused has had a fair opportunity to present their case.