520 Phil. 202
AZCUNA, J.:
That on or about the 19th day of October , 1996, early in the morning, at Poblacion, Municipality of Kalibo, Province of Aklan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a handgun, without justifiable cause and with intent to kill, did then and there wi[l]lfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one RUPERTO F. LAJO, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds, to wit:"A. EXTERNAL FINDINGS:
=.56 cm entrance gunshot wound proximal third lateral aspect left arm with fracture of the left humerus. =1 cm exit wound proximal third medial aspect left arm. =1 cm entrance gunshot wound anterior axillary line 5th intercostals space left chest.
B. INTERNAL FINDINGS
=One liter of flood left thoracic cavity =Perforated left diaphragm. =One — two liters of blood in the abdominal cavity. =2 point perforation stomach =Multiple perforation small, and large intestines and mesenteries. =(+) Retroperitonial hematoma
nonaDIAGNOSIS : Gunshot wound left of arm with fracture of teh humerus, penetrating the (L) thoracic cavity perforating the diaphragm, abdomen, stomach and, intestines and retroperitoneum with slugs lodging the vertebral colum[n]. CAUSE OF DEATH: Cardiopulmonary arrest Secondary to severe bleeding Secondary to gunshot wound.
as per Autopsy Report issued by Dr. Roel A. Escanillas, Medical Officer III, Dr. Rafael S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital, Kalibo, Aklan, which wounds directly caused the death of RUPERTO F. LAJO, as per Certificate of Death, hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B" and forming part of this Information.On April 30, 1997, Baxinela was arraigned and pleaded NOT GUILTY.[3] During pre-trial, Baxinela informed the RTC that he would be claiming the justifying circumstance of self-defense.[4] In accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defense was the first to present evidence.[5]
That as a result of the criminal acts of the accused the heirs of the deceased suffered actual and compensatory damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00).
CONTRARY TO LAW.
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused SPO2 EDUARDO BAXINELA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, and considering the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and provocation, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 4 years of prision correccional medium as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor medium as maximum.On appeal, the CA modified Baxinela's conviction by disallowing the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision reads as follows:[17]
The accused is further ordered to pay a) the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Sgt. Ruperto F. Lajo; b) then sum of P81,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages; and c) the sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages; plus costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision appealed from finding the Appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION, that the Appellant is hereby meted an indeterminate penalty of from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY OF Prision Mayor, as Minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum.Baxinela filed the present petition for review on certiorari citing the following grounds:
SO ORDERED.
Resolution of the petition will entail an initial determination of which version of the incident will be accepted. The defense alleges that Baxinela proceeded to the Superstar Disco Pub in response to the information given by Manuba that there was an armed drunken man accosting several people inside the pub. Once they arrived, they saw Lajo with a handgun visibly tucked behind his waist. When Baxinela introduced himself as a policeman and asked why he had a handgun, Lajo suddenly drew on him prompting Baxinela to pull out his gun and fire upon Lajo, critically wounding him. Thereafter, the defense claims that Regimen ordered the security guards to bring Lajo to the hospital while they proceed to the police station to report the incident.
- THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION.
- THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SELF DEFENSE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE LAWFUL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY UNDER ARTICLE 11 PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 5, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
- THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED.
- THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE QUALIFIED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.
Subsequently, when the trial court propounded clarificatory questions, Baxinela's new assertion was that the firearm was still at the back of Lajo:
Q. What else did you do after identifying yourself as a policeman and ask[ing] why he has a gun? A. He did not respond. Q. What else happened if anything happened? A. He immediately drew his gun turning towards me and aimed it at me.[19]
Furthermore, the follow-up investigation conducted by the police yielded a different picture of what happened. This was entered into the police records as Entry No. 3359 and it reads in part: [21]
Q. At the moment that you fired, was he already able to dr[a]w his firearm or not yet? A. Yes sir, already pulled out but still at the back.[20]
x x x SPO2 Eduardo Baxinela accosted the victim why he ha[d] in his possession a firearm and when the victim SGT Ruperto Lajo PA was about to get his wallet on his back pocket for his ID, SPO2 Eduardo Baxinela anticipated that the victim was drawing his firearm on his waist prompting said policeman to shoot the victim. x x xThe Court now proceeds to determine if, following the prosecution's version of what happened, Baxinela can claim the justifying circumstances of self-defense and fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.