People vs. Rey

An accused who admits killing must prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence; absent unlawful aggression—such as where the victim was unarmed and merely raised his right arm chest-high—self-defense fails, and treachery is sufficiently alleged by an information stating that the shooting was done “in a sudden and unexpected manner.”

On the evening of May 28, 1983, a fiesta day in Poblacion, Pilar, Capiz, Rosette Pagayunan, a teacher at San Esteban Elementary School, was preparing to cook at her house but found no water. She instructed her two children, Babette and Nicolas, to get water from the faucet of Saturnino Rey, also a public school teacher; at that time Rey’s faucet was allegedly the only one with water in the neighborhood because of a long drought. Nicolas was then a nineteen-year-old fourth year high school student at Colegio de la Purisima Concepcion, Roxas City.

Babette and Nicolas proceeded to Rey’s house and found Roban Rey, Rey’s son, near the faucet, sitting atop the steps of the kitchen stairway and talking with Nicolas. While Nicolas stood beside the faucet waiting for his pail to be filled, Saturnino Rey shot him twice from the window of his bedroom about four meters away. The shooting was witnessed by Roban and Babette, who was about three meters from the faucet. After he was hit, Nicolas said to Roban, “I was hit,” and soon fell in front of Roban. Roban went up the house and told Saturnino, “Daddy you hit Colas.” Babette went home and reported the shooting to her mother, who fainted. The Pagayunan sisters and their group went to the place to get Nicolas’s body; he was taken to the Medicare Hospital in Pilar, Capiz, given first-aid treatment, then taken to Roxas City but died before reaching the hospital.

On the morning of May 29, 1983, Patrolmen Jose Ballera and Hanzel Villareal investigated the place and found an empty shell (Exh. C) below the window of Saturnino Rey’s room. During the investigation, Roban Rey, in the presence of the police investigators and Romeo Bacalocos, pointed to the direction of the window of his father’s room as the place where the firing came from.

Rey testified that at about 8:40 that evening he was inside his room lying down with his four-year-old child by his second wife. A person opened the window of his room. He felt for his pistol, sat on the bed, and asked, “Who are you?” but received no answer. He fired a shot; he fired twice. He said the first shot was upward, into the air. He saw a person outside the window but only as a silhouette and could not recognize him. The person pushed the shutter and put his hand down; at the second shot the person had the action of drawing something, so he fired the second shot. The person was right at the window, and Rey could see him from the waist. Rey’s bed was about one foot from the wall of the window. After the second shot he gave an alarm to his children. The interval between the two shots was about three to five seconds.

After the shooting, Rey did not go down from his house even after finding that the person he had shot was Nicolas Pagayunan, did not help the victim who was lying on the ground bleeding and moaning, and instead uttered curses. Very early the next morning, at about 5:30, he left his house and stayed with his brother in a neighboring municipality, and did not go home even to help the police in their investigation.

The trial court found Rey’s testimony evasive and ambiguous and gave credence to the prosecution witnesses, who had no evil motive to testify falsely. Babette categorically declared that the first shot hit her brother and that the second shot came seconds later; Rey himself testified that the interval was three to five seconds. The trial court also noted that the empty shell was found outside the house, not near Rey’s bed, and that if Rey’s version were true the first shot would have hit a part of the house. In his appeal, Rey’s counsel challenged the trial court’s complete belief in the prosecution witnesses and cited circumstances he claimed were overlooked: it was summer and water connections were not functioning; Rey’s faucet was not functioning and had been disconnected; his household got water from Martin Cunada; the Pagayunans had never drawn water from his faucet; his house was at least 120 meters from the deceased’s house; access to his bedroom window was through a shuttered gate of a wire-enclosed vegetable garden; a six-foot chicken and barb-wire fence covered with climbing plants blocked the view; his house was a bungalow with the bedroom window sill about 3.5 feet from the ground; the deceased was found below or near the bedroom window inside the enclosed vegetable garden by family members and by Martin Cunada; Cunada stayed about five minutes and did not see Babette; only Babette of the Pagayunan household was seen with the deceased at the Medicare Hospital and in Roxas City; none of the four water containers the deceased allegedly brought was found; and the other prosecution witnesses, except Dr. Buenvenida, allegedly concocted material portions of their testimonies.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Appellant argued that the trial court completely believed the prosecution witnesses and overlooked, misapplied, or misinterpreted circumstances of weight and substance—such as the water supply, distance of the houses, the fence and vegetable garden, the location of the body, Martin Cunada’s presence, the absence of water containers, and the alleged concoction by prosecution witnesses—which, if considered, would materially alter the result.
• Self-Defense: Appellant maintained that he acted in self-defense: a person opened his bedroom window, he asked who it was and got no answer, he fired a warning shot into the air, and he fired the second shot only when the person raised his right arm chest-high or had the action of drawing something.
• Treachery Not Charged or Proven: Appellant contended that treachery or alevosia was not charged in the information and was not proven by the prosecution evidence.

• Physical Evidence: The People’s counsel observed that if Rey’s version were true, the empty shell would have fallen near his bed inside his room, not outside the house where Patrolman Hanzel Villareal found it, and the first shot would have hit a part of the house.

• Self-Defense: Whether appellant established self-defense by clear and convincing evidence, specifically whether there was unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased when he raised his right arm chest-high.
• Treachery in the Information: Whether the information sufficiently alleged treachery or alevosia despite not using the word “alevosia” or “treachery.”
• Treachery as Qualifying Circumstance: Whether treachery was proven by the prosecution evidence.
• Credibility and Trial Court Findings: Whether the trial court erred in completely believing the prosecution witnesses and disregarding the circumstances cited by appellant.

• Self-Defense: No. Appellant failed to prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence; there was no unlawful aggression because the deceased was unarmed and merely raised his right arm chest-high.
• Treachery in the Information: No. The information sufficiently alleged treachery when it stated that the shooting was done “in a sudden and unexpected manner”; the word “alevosia” need not be used.
• Treachery as Qualifying Circumstance: Yes. Treachery was proven by Babette’s testimony that appellant suddenly and without warning shot the deceased while he was waiting for water and talking to appellant’s son.
• Credibility and Trial Court Findings: No. The trial court’s findings were sustained; the circumstances cited by appellant were of little importance because he admitted firing the shot that killed the deceased, and the prosecution witnesses had no evil motive to testify falsely.

• Self-Defense: The SC held that because Rey admitted firing the shots that killed Nicolas, it was incumbent on him to prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. He had to rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution’s, since even weak prosecution evidence could not be disbelieved after his admission. Rey failed to discharge that burden. His own testimony did not establish unlawful aggression: he said he saw a person open his bedroom window, asked who it was, got no answer, fired a shot into the air, and then fired the second shot when the person raised his right arm chest-high. The SC ruled that unlawful aggression requires an actual sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, and that an unarmed person’s raising of his right arm chest-high is not unlawful aggression. Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense. Rey also failed to rebut the presumption of criminal intention; his conduct after the shooting—not helping the victim, not going down even after learning it was Nicolas, uttering curses, and leaving early the next morning to stay with his brother in a neighboring municipality without helping the police—was inconsistent with an innocent shooting and indicated a guilty mind. The SC cited People vs. Llamera and People vs. Pasco, Jr.
• Treachery in the Information: The SC held that the information sufficiently alleged treachery. It stated that Rey, armed with a .45 caliber pistol, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shot Nicolas “in a sudden and unexpected manner.” This was sufficient because a sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the person attacked, is the essence of treachery or alevosia. The information need not use the specific word “alevosia” or “treachery”; it is enough that it alleges facts in clear and explicit language showing treachery. The SC cited Section 9, Rule 110, Rules of Court.
• Treachery as Qualifying Circumstance: The SC held that treachery was established by Babette Pagayunan’s testimony that Rey suddenly and without warning shot the deceased as the latter was waiting for his pail to be filled with water and talking to Rey’s son. The attack was sudden, unexpected, without warning, and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression; the deceased did not sense any danger because there was no previous grudge or misunderstanding. Rey’s claim of a warning shot was an afterthought: Babette categorically declared that the first shot hit her brother, and the shots were fired in rapid succession—seconds apart, with Rey himself saying the interval was three to five seconds—so the first shot could not have been a warning. The People’s counsel also observed that if Rey’s version were true, the empty shell would have fallen near his bed inside the room, not outside where Patrolman Hanzel Villareal found it, and the first shot would have hit a part of the house. The trial court correctly found murder qualified by treachery.
• Credibility and Trial Court Findings: The SC found no cogent reason to disturb the trial court’s findings. The trial court found Rey’s testimony evasive and ambiguous and gave credence to the prosecution witnesses, who had no evil motive to testify falsely. The circumstances cited by Rey’s counsel were of little importance because Rey had admitted firing the shot that killed the deceased.

• Self-Defense — Burden and Unlawful Aggression — An accused who admits killing must prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence and must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not the weakness of the prosecution’s. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude; an unarmed person’s raising of his right arm chest-high is not unlawful aggression. Absent unlawful aggression, self-defense fails. Applied: Rey’s self-defense was rejected.
• Treachery/Alevosia — Sufficiency of Allegation — Treachery may be alleged without using the word “alevosia” or “treachery”; it is enough that the information alleges facts in clear and explicit language showing a sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation. Applied: the information’s allegation that Rey shot Nicolas “in a sudden and unexpected manner” sufficiently charged treachery.
• Treachery/Alevosia — Essence and Proof — The essence of treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the person attacked, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression. Applied: Babette’s testimony established that Rey suddenly and without warning shot Nicolas while he was waiting for water and talking to Rey’s son; the attack was qualified by treachery.
• Flight — Flight is an indication of a guilty mind. Applied: Rey left his house early the next morning and stayed with his brother in a neighboring municipality, and did not help the police investigation.
• Presumption of Criminal Intention — The accused failed to rebut the presumption that the shooting was done with criminal intention; his conduct after the shooting was inconsistent with that of a person who had innocently shot someone by accident. Applied: Rey did not help the victim, did not go down even after learning it was Nicolas, uttered curses, and fled.
• Trial Court’s Credibility Findings — The SC will not disturb the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility absent cogent reason. Applied: the SC sustained the trial court’s finding that Rey’s testimony was evasive and ambiguous and that the prosecution witnesses had no evil motive.

• “For unlawful aggression to be appreciated in self-defense, there must be an actual sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.” — The SC used this rule to reject Rey’s self-defense because the deceased was unarmed and merely raised his right arm.
• “The raising of the right arm chest high alone by an unarmed person cannot be considered unlawful aggression. Absent unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased, there cannot be self-defense on the part of the accused.” — This applies the unlawful-aggression rule to Rey’s own testimony and disposes of his self-defense.
• “It is not necessary that the information should use specifically the word \"alevosia\" or treachery. It is sufficient if the information alleges facts in clear and explicit language which would show treachery or alevosia without the use of the specific word.” — The SC used this to hold that the information’s “sudden and unexpected manner” allegation sufficiently charged treachery.
• “Flight is an indication of a guilty mind.” — The SC noted Rey left early the next morning and did not help the police investigation.

• People vs. Llamera, G.R. No. L-21604-06, May 25, 1973, 51 SCRA 48, 57 — Followed for the rule that an accused who admits killing must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s, since even weak prosecution evidence cannot be disbelieved after the admission.
• People vs. Pasco, Jr., G.R. No. L-45715-16, June 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 137 — Followed for the definition of unlawful aggression in self-defense: an actual sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.

• Section 9, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Cited for the sufficiency of an information alleging treachery; the SC applied it to hold that the information’s allegation that Rey shot Nicolas “in a sudden and unexpected manner” sufficiently charged treachery even without the word “alevosia” or “treachery.”

• Justice Melencio-Herrera (Concurring, with reservations as to penalty only) — Concurred with reservations as to the penalty only, consistent with her dissent in P. vs. Millora. Separate opinion; its text is not included.