People v. Rapanut

G.R. No. 106817 (October 24, 1996)

Facts:

The case involves accused-appellants Pfc. Julian Rapanut and Pat. Diosdado Rapanut, both members of the Philippine National Police, who were charged with the murder of P/Sgt. Amado Somera. On the night of November 3, 1980, the three were involved in an incident that led to Somera's death. They had returned to the Vigan Police Station after assisting in maintaining peace during a town fiesta in Caoayan, Ilocos Sur. After reporting to the station, Somera drove the patrol tricycle with the accused-appellants as passengers.

Shortly after leaving the station, a shooting incident occurred. Cpl. Reynaldo Gascon, the officer-in-charge, received reports of the shooting and went to the scene, where he found Somera slumped over the driver’s seat of the tricycle, with multiple gunshot wounds and a .38 caliber revolver on the ground. An autopsy revealed that Somera died from multiple gunshot wounds, with significant injuries to vital areas such as the carotid artery and trachea.

Eyewitness testimony indicated that Julian Rapanut was seen pointing a long firearm at Somera while Diosdado Rapanut was positioned behind Somera with a short firearm. The prosecution presented evidence including ballistic tests linking the firearms to the accused and a paraffin test indicating that Julian Rapanut's hands tested positive for gunpowder residue.

The defense claimed that Julian shot Somera in self-defense after Somera drew his revolver during an altercation. Diosdado Rapanut testified that he was unarmed and fled the scene out of fear. The trial court ultimately found both accused-appellants guilty of murder, leading to their appeal.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting Diosdado Rapanut despite evidence warranting his acquittal.
3. Whether Julian Rapanut acted in legitimate self-defense.
4. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated.

Arguments:

• Prosecution's Arguments:

  • The prosecution argued that both accused-appellants were guilty of murder, as evidenced by eyewitness accounts and ballistic tests linking them to the crime. They contended that the circumstances surrounding the shooting indicated treachery, as Somera was ambushed without any warning.
  • The prosecution emphasized the number and location of the gunshot wounds, suggesting that the attack was premeditated and executed with treachery.

• Defense's Arguments:

  • The defense claimed that Julian Rapanut acted in self-defense, asserting that Somera drew his weapon first, prompting Julian to shoot. They argued that Diosdado Rapanut was unarmed and had no involvement in the shooting.
  • The defense also contended that the evidence did not support the claim of treachery, as there was no clear indication of how the attack commenced.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court found that both accused-appellants were guilty of homicide rather than murder, as the prosecution failed to establish the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The court noted that the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate how the attack began, and the eyewitness did not see the initial confrontation.

The court acknowledged that while Julian Rapanut admitted to shooting Somera, he did not sufficiently prove the elements of self-defense, particularly the existence of unlawful aggression. The court found that the evidence indicated that both accused-appellants were involved in the shooting, with Julian using an M-16 rifle and Diosdado likely using the .38 caliber revolver.

However, the court recognized the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as both accused voluntarily presented themselves to authorities before any arrest warrants were issued. Consequently, the court modified the sentence to reflect the lesser charge of homicide, imposing an indeterminate penalty.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. Treachery: The court emphasized that for treachery to be established, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was sudden and unprovoked, which was not demonstrated in this case.
2. Self-Defense: The burden of proof lies with the accused to establish the elements of self-defense, including unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation.
3. Voluntary Surrender: The court clarified the criteria for recognizing voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, which can be appreciated even if the accused were not formally arrested at the time of surrender.