Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan

An accused who admits killing the victim and pleads self-defense must prove unlawful aggression by clear and convincing evidence; failure to present available evidence of the alleged aggression, such as the victim's knife and the accused's damaged raincoat, defeats the plea. P.D. No. 1606 validly confers jurisdiction on the Sandiganbayan irrespective of the place of the crime, and the absence of CA review does not deprive a convict of a vital right where the SC may still review errors of law and the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Angelito Ortega was a member of the Integrated National Police stationed in San Pablo City. The Sandiganbayan tried him under P.D. No. 1606, which provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have its principal office in Metro Manila and shall hold sessions there for the trial and determination of all cases filed with it irrespective of the place where they may have arisen. The SC had upheld the constitutionality of P.D. No. 1606 in several cases.

Angelito Ortega was a duly appointed and qualified member of the Integrated National Police stationed in San Pablo City, and on July 17, 1977 he was in the actual performance of his official duties when he shot Marciano Donato y Hernandez with his service pistol. The deceased was shot in San Pablo City, but his body was brought to the NBI official morgue at Funeraria Popular, Manila, where an NBI photographer took photographs and Dr. Maximo Reyes y Laro autopsied it on July 18, 1977. Dr. Reyes found one gunshot wound with its point of entry below the right eye; the bullet trajected upward and backward from right to left and exited at the back of the head. Marks of burning and smudging of tissues surrounding the entry wound indicated that the muzzle of the gun at the time of firing was in near contact — not more than six inches from the victim's cheek. Dr. Reyes issued Necropsy Report N-77-1135, the certificate of post-mortem examination, and the corresponding death certificate.

According to Ortega, between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on July 17, 1977, while he was on traffic duty, Mario Castillo complained that a person was extorting money from him and said he would point the extortionist; Castillo had a small wound on the neck which he said was caused by a knife poked by the extortionist. Ortega and Castillo went to Pat. Cesar Belen, who was directing traffic at Paulino St., San Pablo City, and Ortega asked Belen to accompany them. Belen left his post and joined Ortega and Castillo to Bonifacio St. At Cine Supreme, Castillo pointed to a man wearing a hat as the alleged extortionist. When they were about to approach the man, he saw them and ran away. They went to Burgos St. to intercept him, but the man saw them again at the corner of Zamora and Burgos Sts. and fled. Ortega and Belen flagged down a passing tricycle driven by Ernesto Obias y Sombilles and ordered the driver to drive against the flow of traffic along Burgos St. to overtake their quarry. They saw the man at Malvar St. going toward them, but he entered a yard upon seeing them.

Ortega and Belen alighted from the tricycle in front of the gate of the yard while Obias stood by near his tricycle. Ortega sought cover behind one of the panels of the gate and shouted to the man behind a kalamansi tree to come out, introducing themselves as policemen. Belen positioned himself some three arms-length (dipa) from Ortega outside the fence. The man came out with a drawn kitchen knife and suddenly stabbed Ortega. Ortega moved back to evade the blow and happened to lean on the tricycle, but his raincoat near the portion of his stomach was reached by the knife. With Ortega still leaning on the tricycle, the man stabbed him again, but Ortega was able to draw his gun and fire at his assailant. The man fell to the ground. Ortega, Belen, and Obias picked him up, boarded him on the tricycle, and brought him to the hospital. Ortega also picked up the kitchen knife and brought it to the police headquarters.

Ortega claimed that the muzzle of his gun was about one foot (12 inches) from the deceased when he fired the fatal shot. Dr. Sixto delos Angeles was of the opinion that powder burns can be found if the muzzle of the gun is less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) away, while Dr. Pedro Solis was of the opinion that gunpowder burns will be present if the muzzle is not more than 24 inches away. Dr. Reyes himself declared that there would be a clean surface if the distance was more than 24 inches. The Sandiganbayan found that Ortega, who is right-handed, drew his gun and shot the deceased with his right hand. Driver Obias demonstrated that Ortega was still leaning on the tricycle when the deceased lunged at him and delivered the second blow, and that Ortega drew and fired with his right hand with the left side of Donato's body directly against the right side of Ortega. Ortega asserted that when he fired at his assailant who had stabbed him a second time, their faces were directly toward each other. The Sandiganbayan found that neither description was sustained by the location of the entry wound below the right eye and the bullet's right-to-left trajectory, creating a serious credibility gap between testimony and fact.

The Sandiganbayan also found that Ortega did not draw his gun despite seeing the man carrying a knife and showing no signs of surrender, which it considered contrary to human experience and most probably a deviation from standard operating procedure for law enforcement agents. It noted that Ortega did not sustain a single wound and failed to present the knife and his raincoat. Although Ortega testified that the knife was in the custody of the property custodian of the San Pablo City Police Station, he did not present the knife itself or the property custodian to testify.

• Non-presentation of Knife and Raincoat: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan erred in concluding that he gave no tenable explanation for his failure to offer the claimed material evidence, namely his raincoat and the victim's knife.
• Medico-Legal Expert Opinion: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in relying totally on the medico-legal experts' opinion on vital matters material to its findings.
• Contradictions Among Defense Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan fatally erred in finding that the alleged contradictions among witnesses for the defense were real and fatal.
• Territorial Jurisdiction and Vested Right: Petitioner argued that, prior to the promulgation of P.D. No. 1606, he had acquired a vested right, not waivable, to be tried in the place of the alleged commission of the crime, thus depriving the Sandiganbayan of territorial jurisdiction and rendering the proceedings invalid.
• Right to Appeal to the CA: Petitioner argued that the trial conducted by the Sandiganbayan deprived him of another vested right, namely, to an appeal in the ordinary course where findings of fact of the trial tribunal are subject to open review by the CA.

• Self-Defense — Non-presentation of Knife and Raincoat: Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in concluding that petitioner gave no tenable explanation for his failure to offer the claimed material evidence, namely his raincoat and the victim's knife.
• Self-Defense — Medico-Legal Expert Opinion: Whether the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in relying totally on the medico-legal experts' opinion on vital matters material to its findings.
• Self-Defense — Contradictions Among Defense Witnesses: Whether the Sandiganbayan fatally erred in finding that the alleged contradictions among witnesses for the defense were real and fatal.
• Territorial Jurisdiction and Vested Right: Whether, prior to the promulgation of P.D. No. 1606, petitioner acquired a vested, non-waivable right to be tried in the place of the alleged commission of the crime, thereby depriving the Sandiganbayan of territorial jurisdiction and rendering the proceedings invalid.
• Right to Appeal to the CA: Whether the trial conducted by the Sandiganbayan deprived petitioner of a vested right to an appeal in the ordinary course, where findings of fact of the trial tribunal are subject to open review by the CA.

• Self-Defense — Non-presentation of Knife and Raincoat: No. Petitioner failed to prove unlawful aggression, the main ingredient of self-defense; the non-presentation of the knife and raincoat, despite their availability, led to the inference that no such knife existed and undermined his plea.
• Self-Defense — Medico-Legal Expert Opinion: No. The Sandiganbayan did not err in relying on Dr. Reyes; the defense experts' opinions did not negate his conclusion that the muzzle was within six inches, and the degree of burning and smudging supported near-contact firing.
• Self-Defense — Contradictions Among Defense Witnesses: No. The positions described by petitioner and Obias were inconsistent with the entry wound and trajectory, and petitioner's failure to draw his gun was contrary to human experience and standard operating procedure.
• Territorial Jurisdiction and Vested Right: No. P.D. No. 1606 validly confers jurisdiction on the Sandiganbayan irrespective of the place of the crime, and its constitutionality had been upheld.
• Right to Appeal to the CA: No. The omission of the CA as an intermediate tribunal does not deprive petitioner of a vital right; the SC may still review errors of law and whether the constitutional presumption of innocence was overcome.

• Self-Defense — Non-presentation of Knife and Raincoat: The SC began from the rule that where the accused admits being the author of the victim's death and anchors his defense on self-defense, the burden is on him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution, because he himself admitted the killing. The requisites under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code are (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is indispensable; without it, there is nothing to prevent or repel and the second requisite has no basis. Ortega claimed Donato attacked him with a knife, the first blow hitting his raincoat near the stomach and the second simultaneous with his firing. The SC agreed with the Sandiganbayan that Ortega had to establish the existence of the knife and the raincoat; it was not enough to testify that the knife was in the custody of the property custodian of the San Pablo City Police Station. He should have presented the knife itself and the property custodian, which was not a problem because he was himself a member of the San Pablo City Police Force. The non-presentation of the knife led to the inference that there was no such knife, or that no responsible member of the police force would lend himself to conjuring up an object that did not exist. Ortega also did not sustain a single wound. Absent these vital pieces of evidence, his plea of self-defense had to fail. Even granting arguendo that the gun was 12 inches away, the SC still found the evidence insufficient to show clearly and convincingly that Ortega fired in self-defense because unlawful aggression was not proven.
• Self-Defense — Medico-Legal Expert Opinion: The SC found no reversible error in the Sandiganbayan's reliance on Dr. Maximo Reyes. Ortega claimed the muzzle was about 12 inches from the deceased, but Dr. Reyes testified that the burned and smudged tissues at the entry wound below the right eye showed the muzzle could not have been more than six inches from the victim's cheek. Ortega cited Dr. Sixto delos Angeles, who said powder burns can be found if the muzzle is less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) away, and Dr. Pedro Solis, who said gunpowder burns will be present if the muzzle is not more than 24 inches away. The SC agreed that burned and smudged tissues can be present even if the muzzle is beyond six inches, but the degree of burning and smudging is necessarily greater when the muzzle is one inch away than when it is 24 inches away. Dr. Reyes concluded in this case that the muzzle could not have been more than six inches away. The SC therefore agreed with the Sandiganbayan's assessment of the medical evidence.
• Self-Defense — Contradictions Among Defense Witnesses: The SC also found the defense theory weakened by the Sandiganbayan's finding that the testimony of Ortega, corroborated by his witnesses, on his position relative to the deceased during the fatal incident was not in accord with Dr. Reyes's medical findings that the bullet entered just below the victim's right eye. Ortega is right-handed and drew his gun and shot with his right hand. Driver Obias demonstrated that Ortega was still leaning on the tricycle when Donato lunged and delivered the second blow, and that Ortega drew and fired with his right hand with the left side of Donato's body directly against the right side of Ortega. Ortega asserted that when he fired, their faces were directly toward each other. Neither description was sustained by the location of the entry wound below the right eye and the bullet's right-to-left trajectory. The SC agreed that there was a serious credibility gap between testimony and fact. It also found Ortega's testimony that he did not draw his gun despite seeing the man carrying a knife and showing no signs of surrender to be contrary to human experience and most probably a deviation from standard operating procedure for law enforcement agents. It was not believable for an officer of the law confronting a suspected criminal showing no signs of surrender, seeing him armed and potentially dangerous, not to have drawn his holstered service revolver ahead of time to effect the arrest or protect himself against a clear and imminent danger.
• Territorial Jurisdiction and Vested Right: The SC held the petitioner's arguments manifestly without merit. The constitutionality of P.D. No. 1606, the law creating the Sandiganbayan, had been upheld in several cases. Section 2 of P.D. No. 1606 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have its principal office in the Metro Manila area and shall hold sessions there for the trial and determination of all cases filed with it irrespective of the place where they may have arisen. The SC therefore rejected the claim that the Sandiganbayan lacked territorial jurisdiction because the crime was committed in San Pablo City.
• Right to Appeal to the CA: The SC rejected the claim that the absence of the CA as an intermediate appellate tribunal deprived petitioner of a vital right. Quoting Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, the SC said the answer must be in the negative. The accused's innocence or guilt is passed upon by the three-judge court of a division of the Sandiganbayan. A unanimous vote is required; failing that, the Presiding Justice designates two other justices from among the members of the Sandiganbayan to sit temporarily with them, forming a division of five justices, and the concurrence of a majority of that division is necessary for rendering judgment. If convicted, the SC has the duty, if review is sought, to see whether any error of law was committed to justify reversal. The SC can determine whether the constitutional presumption of innocence has been overcome, and it has repeatedly reversed convictions on a showing that this fundamental right was disregarded. It was far-fetched and highly unrealistic to conclude that the omission of the CA as a reviewing authority results in the loss of a vital protection of liberty.

• Self-Defense — Burden and Requisites — When the accused admits killing the victim and pleads self-defense, the burden is on the accused to prove the justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. The requisites under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is indispensable; without it, self-defense has no basis. The SC applied this rule to reject Ortega's plea because he failed to prove unlawful aggression.
• Non-presentation of Evidence in Self-Defense — An accused who claims self-defense must establish the existence of the weapon and other physical evidence allegedly involved in the aggression. Mere testimony that the knife was in the custody of the police property custodian is insufficient; the accused should present the knife and the custodian. Non-presentation leads to the inference that no such knife existed. The SC applied this to Ortega's failure to present the knife and his raincoat.
• Medico-Legal Evidence and Credibility — Medical findings on the location of the entry wound, the trajectory of the bullet, and the presence of burning and smudging may contradict the accused's account of the shooting. Powder burns and smudging can be present beyond six inches, but the degree of burning and smudging is greater when the muzzle is closer. The SC applied this in upholding the Sandiganbayan's reliance on Dr. Reyes's conclusion that the muzzle was within six inches.
• Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction and Venue — P.D. No. 1606, Section 2, gives the Sandiganbayan its principal office in Metro Manila and authorizes it to hold sessions there for the trial and determination of all cases filed with it irrespective of the place where they arose. The SC applied this to reject Ortega's territorial jurisdiction challenge.
• Right to Appeal from Sandiganbayan — The omission of the CA as an intermediate appellate tribunal does not deprive a convict of a vital right. The three-judge division, the requirement of a unanimous vote or an expanded five-justice division, and SC review for errors of law and the constitutional presumption of innocence provide sufficient protection. The SC applied this to reject Ortega's vested-right argument.

• "Well settled is the rule that where the accused had admitted that he is the author of the death of the victim and his defense anchored on self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove this justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for the accused himself had admitted the killing." — This states the burden on an accused who admits killing and pleads self-defense, which the SC used to reject Ortega's plea.
• "It is elementary that the first requisite of self-defense is indispensable. There can be no self-defense unless it is proven that there has been unlawful aggression on the part of the person injured or killed by the accused. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or to repel." — This identifies unlawful aggression as the indispensable first requisite, the ground on which Ortega's self-defense failed.
• "The non-presentation of the knife only leads to the inference that there was no such knife, or, that nobody among the responsible members of the San Pablo City Police Force would lend himself to conjuring up the existence of an object when there is none." — This explains the evidentiary inference drawn from Ortega's failure to present the knife, a key reason his self-defense failed.
• "In the first place, his innocence or guilt is passed upon by the three-judge court of a division of respondent Court. Moreover, a unanimous vote is required, failing which 'the Presiding Justice shall designate two other justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with them, forming a division of five justices, and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be necessary for rendering judgment." — This explains why the absence of CA review did not deprive Ortega of a vital right, as the Sandiganbayan's three-judge division and SC review remained.

• Andres vs. C.A., No. L-48957, June 23, 1987, 151 SCRA 268 — Cited for the rule that an accused who admits killing and pleads self-defense must prove the justifying circumstance.
• People vs. Picardal, No. I,72936, June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 170 — Cited for the same rule on the burden of proving self-defense.
• Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, Nos. L-50581-50617, January 30, 1982, 111 SCRA 433 — Relied on to reject the claim that the absence of CA review deprives a convict of a vital right; also cited for upholding the constitutionality of P.D. No. 1606.
• Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., Nos. L-5471950, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 105 — Cited for upholding the constitutionality of P.D. No. 1606.
• People vs. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109 (1933) — Relied on for determining the maximum and minimum penalties under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Article 11, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines self-defense and its requisites: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation. The SC applied it to hold that Ortega failed to prove unlawful aggression.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes homicide with reclusion temporal. The SC affirmed Ortega's conviction under this article.
• Presidential Decree No. 1606, Section 2 — Provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have its principal office in Metro Manila and shall hold sessions there for all cases filed with it irrespective of the place where they arose. The SC applied it to reject the territorial jurisdiction challenge.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103) — Requires the maximum penalty to be determined under the Revised Penal Code as if the law had not been passed, and the minimum to be not less than the minimum of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code. The SC applied it in affirming the indeterminate penalty.
• Constitutional presumption of innocence — The SC cited it in rejecting the claim that the absence of CA review deprived petitioner of a vital right, noting that SC review can determine whether the required quantum of evidence overcame the presumption.