People vs. Gonzales

A claim of self-defense fails where unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is absent, and the accused's own witness and physical evidence contradict the claim by showing the accused initiated the attack.

Eduardo Gonzales and his brother, Edmundo Gonzales, were charged with murder for the killing of Eligio Donato. The victim had been invited to the appellant's house by Edmundo. Upon the victim's arrival, the appellant, armed with a .22 caliber firearm, immediately fired at him multiple times, inflicting three gunshot wounds that caused the victim's death before medical treatment could be administered.

• The Incident: Eligio Donato went to the house of Eduardo Gonzales at the invitation of co-accused Edmundo Gonzales. Upon arrival, the appellant met the victim while armed with a .22 caliber firearm. The appellant and Edmundo fired at the victim six times, hitting him in the arm, left thigh, and left chest. The victim died before receiving medical treatment.
• Appellant's Version: Gonzales claimed self-defense, testifying that he was watching television when the victim suddenly arrived, armed with a short firearm, and shouted invectives and threatened to kill him. After failing to pacify the victim, the appellant retrieved his own firearm. A struggle ensued over the possession of the firearm, causing it to discharge three times and hit the victim.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC rejected the self-defense claim, noting the absence of powder burns on the victim, which indicated he was not shot at close range. The RTC and CA both found the prosecution's version more credible, emphasizing that the victim was unarmed and suddenly attacked.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Petitioner argued that the RTC erred in giving weight and credence to the highly inconsistent and questionable testimony of the prosecution eyewitness.
• Self-Defense: Petitioner maintained that the RTC erred in disregarding the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Petitioner contended that the RTC erred in finding that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attended the killing.

• Credibility of Witness: Respondent countered that the prosecution eyewitness' account was straightforward, categorical, and without established ill motive, and was compatible with physical evidence showing the appellant initiated the attack.
• Treachery: Respondent argued that treachery attended the killing because the attack was executed in a manner that rendered the victim defenseless and unable to retaliate.

• Self-Defense: Whether the justifying circumstance of self-defense was properly appreciated in favor of the accused.
• Treachery: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was proven.
• Damages: Whether the awards of damages, specifically actual damages and loss of earning capacity, were properly awarded and computed.

• Self-Defense: Self-defense was properly rejected. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was absent; the victim was unarmed, and the appellant's own witness testified that the appellant fired first. Flight from the crime scene and hiding for four years further belied the claim of self-defense.
• Treachery: Treachery was present. The victim was unarmed and unsuspecting, having just alighted from a tricycle, and the attack was sudden, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. The means were deliberately adopted, as the victim was lured to the house where the armed appellant waited.
• Evident Premeditation: Evident premeditation was not proven. The prosecution failed to prove when and how the plan to kill was determined, and that the offender clung to this determination with sufficient time for reflection.
• Damages: The award of actual damages was deleted and replaced with temperate damages (₱30,000.00). Compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity (₱1,685,184.48) were awarded based on the victim's wife's testimony and his pay slip. Exemplary damages (₱30,000.00) were awarded due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

• Unlawful Aggression — The basic requirement for a plea of self-defense; presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected, or imminent danger, not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. A threat must be offensive and strong, positively showing the intent to cause injury. Unlawful aggression is absent where the victim is unarmed and the accused initiates the attack.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — Present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against the person that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. The two elements are: (1) the employment of means of execution ensuring the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (2) the means, method, and manner of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender.
• Evident Premeditation — Requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
• Damages in Murder Cases — When reclusion perpetua is imposed, the proper amounts are ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages. Temperate damages (₱30,000.00) are awarded in lieu of actual damages when the exact amount of actual damages is not proven. Exemplary damages (₱30,000.00) are awarded when a qualifying circumstance like treachery is present. Compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity require testimonial and documentary evidence.

• "Self-defense as a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, implies the admission by the accused that he committed the acts which would have been criminal in character had it not been for the presence of circumstances whose legal consequences negate the commission of a crime."
• "Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger – not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present ‘only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life.’"

• People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011 — Followed for the definition of unlawful aggression, emphasizing that it presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected, or imminent danger.
• People v. Malabago, 333 Phil. 20 (1996) — Followed for the elements of treachery.
• People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011 — Followed for the proper amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages when reclusion perpetua is imposed.
• People v. Villamor, G.R. No. 187497, October 12, 2011 — Followed for the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
• People v. Antonio, 390 Phil. 989 (2000) — Followed for the award of compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity and the formula used to compute it.

• Article 11, Revised Penal Code — Justifying circumstances; self-defense. Applied to establish the requisites the accused must prove, namely: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation.
• Article 14, par. 16, Revised Penal Code — Aggravating circumstance of treachery (alevosia). Applied to qualify the killing to murder.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Penalty for murder (reclusion perpetua to death). Applied to impose reclusion perpetua, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Murder. Applied as the crime committed by the appellant.

Carpio (Sr. Assoc. Justice, Chairperson), Perez, Sereno, Reyes