Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81183:181354&catid=1567&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:36:20+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013 - SIMON A. FLORES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
SIMON A. FLORES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the August 27, 2004 Decision1 of the Sandiganbayan, First Division (Sandiganbayan), in Criminal Case No. 16946, finding petitioner Simon A. Flores (Flores) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, and its November 29, 2007 Resolution2 denying his motion for reconsideration.
That on or about the 15th day of August, 1989, at nighttime, in the Municipality of Alaminos, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then the Barangay Chairman of San Roque, Alaminos, Laguna, while in the performance of his official functions and committing the offense in relation to his office, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with intent to kill, shoot one JESUS AVENIDO with an M-16 Armalite Rifle, thereby inflicting upon him several gunshot wounds in different parts of his body, which caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said JESUS AVENIDO.
During his arraignment, on August 26, 1991, Flores pleaded “Not Guilty” and waived the pre-trial. Thereafter, the prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: Paulito Duran, one of the visitors (Duran); Gerry Avenido (Gerry), son of the victim; Elisa Avenido (Elisa), wife of the victim; and Dr. Ruben Escueta, the physician who performed the autopsy on the cadaver of the victim, Jesus Avenido (Jesus).
For its part, the defense presented as witnesses, the accused Flores himself; his companion-members of the Civilian Action Force Group Unit (CAFGU), Romulo Alquizar and Maximo H. Manalo; and Dr. Rene Bagamasbad, resident physician of San Pablo City District Hospital.
Based on the Autopsy Report,12 it appeared that the victim suffered four gunshot wounds in the different parts of his body, specifically: on the medial portion of the left shoulder, between the clavicle and the first rib; on the left hypogastric region through the upper right quadrant of the abdomen; on the tip of the left buttocks to the tip of the sacral bone or hip bone; and on the right flank towards the umbilicus. The victim died of massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage due to laceration of the liver.
To avoid criminal liability, Flores interposed self-defense.
The incident was also reported the following day to the CAFGU Superior, Sgt. Alfredo Sta. Ana.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in Criminal Case No. 16946 finding the accused Simon A. Flores GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and to suffer the penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to 17 years, and 4 months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity for the death of Jesus Avenido, another Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P6,500.00) as actual or compensatory damages.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration of accused Flores is considered pro forma which did not toll the running of the period to appeal, and thus, the assailed judgment of this Court has become FINAL and EXECUTORY.
The Court will first resolve the procedural issue raised by Flores in this petition.
Flores claims that the outright denial of his motion for reconsideration by the Sandiganbayan on a mere technicality amounts to a violation of his right to due process. The dismissal rendered final and executory the assailed decision which was replete with baseless conjectures and conclusions that were contrary to the evidence on record. He points out that a relaxation of procedural rules is justified by the merits of this case as the facts, viewed from the proper and objective perspective, indubitably demonstrate self-defense on his part.
Flores argues that he fully complied with the requirements of Section 2 of Rule 37 and Section 4 of Rule 121 of the Rules of Court when the motion itself was served upon the prosecution and the latter, in fact, admitted receiving a copy. For Flores, such judicial admission amounts to giving due notice of the motion which is the intent behind the said rules. He further argues that a hearing on a motion for reconsideration is not necessary as no further proceeding, such as a hearing, is required under Section 3 of Rule 121.
Flores’ argument fails to persuade this Court.
SECTION 5. Notice of hearing. – The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. – The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefore, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period of appeal.
SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. – The motion for a new trial or reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. X x x. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor.
As correctly stated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Sec. 2 of Rule 37 and Sec. 4 of Rule 121 should be read in conjunction with Sec. 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Basic is the rule that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant except for those motions which the court may act upon without prejudice to the rights of the adverse party.23 The notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and must specify the time and date of the hearing, with proof of service.
In this case, as Flores committed a procedural lapse in failing to include a notice of hearing, his motion was a worthless piece of paper with no legal effect whatsoever. Thus, his motion was properly dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.
Flores invokes the exercise by the Court of its discretionary power to review the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan. He avers that the ponente as well as the other members of the First Division who rendered the assailed decision, were not able to observe the witnesses or their manner of testifying as they were not present during the trial.25 He, thus, argues that there was palpable misapprehension of the facts that led to wrong conclusions of law resulting in his unfounded conviction.
His contention is likewise devoid of merit.
In the present case, Flores has not convinced the Court that there was misapprehension or misinterpretation of the material facts nor was the defense able to adduce evidence to establish that the factual findings were arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the Court sustains the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that Flores shot Jesus and continued riddling his body with bullets even after he was already lying helpless on the ground.
Flores insists that the evidence of this case clearly established all the elements of self-defense. According to him, there was an unlawful aggression on the part of Jesus. He was just at the entrance of Jesus’ terrace merely advising him and his guests to reserve their shooting for the fiesta when Jesus approached him, drew a magnum pistol and fired at him. The attack by Jesus was sudden, unexpected and instantaneous. The intent to kill was present because Jesus kept pointing the gun directly at him. As he tried to parry Jesus’ hand, which was holding the gun, the latter kept firing. Left with no choice, he was compelled to use the baby armalite he was carrying to repel the attack. He asserts that there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part as he merely requested Jesus and his drinking buddies to reserve their shooting for the following day as it was already late at night and the neighbors were already asleep.
In effect, Flores faults the Sandiganbayan in not giving weight to the justifying circumstance of self-defense interposed by him and in relying on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses instead.
His argument deserves scant consideration.
The issue of whether Flores indeed acted in self-defense is basically a question of fact. In appeals to this Court, only questions of law may be raised and not issues of fact. The factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are, thus, binding upon this Court.28 This Court, nevertheless, finds no reason to disturb the finding of the Sandiganbayan that Flores utterly failed to prove the existence of self-defense.
In this case, Flores does not dispute that he perpetrated the killing of Jesus by shooting him with an M16 armalite rifle. To justify his shooting of Jesus, he invoked self-defense. By interposing self-defense, Flores, in effect, admits the authorship of the crime. Thus, it was incumbent upon him to prove that the killing was legally justified under the circumstances.
To successfully claim self-defense, the accused must satisfactorily prove the concurrence of the elements of self-defense. Under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who acts in defense of his person or rights does not incur any criminal liability provided that the following circumstances concur: (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.
In this case, Flores failed to discharge his burden.
First, the accused claims that Jesus Avenido shot him on his right shoulder with a magnum handgun from a distance of about one (1) meter. With such a powerful weapon, at such close range, and without hitting any hard portion of his body, it is quite incredible that the bullet did not exit through the accused’s shoulder. On the contrary, if he were hit on the part where the ball and socket were located, as he tried to make it appear later in the trial, it would be very impossible for the bullet not to have hit any of the bones located in that area of his shoulder.
Second, Simon Flores executed an affidavit on September 2, 1989. Significantly, he did not mention anything about a bullet remaining on his shoulder. If indeed a bullet remained lodged in his shoulder at the time he executed his affidavit, it defies logic why he kept mum during the preliminary investigation when it was crucial to divulge such fact if only to avoid the trouble of going through litigation. To wait for trial before finally divulging such a very material information, as he claimed, simply stretches credulity.
Third, in his feverish effort of gathering evidence to establish medical treatment on his right shoulder, the accused surprisingly did not bother to secure the x-ray plate or any medical records from the hospital. Such valuable pieces of evidence would have most likely supported his case of self-defense, even during the preliminary investigation, if they actually existed and had he properly presented them. The utter lack of interest of the accused in retrieving the alleged x-ray plate or any medical record from the hospital militate against the veracity of his version of the incident.
Fourth, the T-shirt presented by the accused in court had a hole, apparently from a hard object, such as a bullet, that pierced through the same. However, the blood stain is visibly concentrated only on the area around the hole forming a circular shape. Within five (5) hours and a half from 12:00 o’clock midnight when he was allegedly shot, to 5:35 a.m. in the early morning of August 16, 1989, when his wounds were treated, the blood would naturally have dripped down to the hem. The blood on the shirt was not even definitively shown to be human blood.
Fifth, Jesus Avenido arrived at his house and joined his visitors who were drinking only at 11:00 o’clock in the evening. Both parties claim that the shooting incident happened more or less 12:00 midnight. Hence, it is very possible that Jesus Avenido was not yet drunk when the incident in question occurred. Defense witnesses themselves noted that the victim Jesus Avenido was bigger in built and taller than the accused. Moreover, the victim was familiar and very much experienced with guns, having previously worked as a policeman. In addition, the latter was relatively young, at the age of 41, when the incident happened. The Court therefore finds it difficult to accept how the victim could miss when he allegedly shot the accused at such close range if, indeed, he really had a gun and intended to harm the accused. We find it much less acceptable to believe how the accused allegedly overpowered the victim so easily and wrestled the gun from the latter, despite allegedly having been hit earlier on his right shoulder.
Granting for the sake of argument that unlawful aggression was initially staged by Jesus, the same ceased to exist when Jesus was first shot on the shoulder and fell to the ground. At that point, the perceived threat to Flores’ life was no longer attendant. The latter had no reason to pump more bullets on Jesus’ abdomen and buttocks.
The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.41 In this case, the continuous shooting by Flores which caused the fatal gunshot wounds were not necessary and reasonable to prevent the claimed unlawful aggression from Jesus as the latter was already lying flat on the ground after he was first shot on the shoulder.
In fine, the Sandiganbayan committed no reversible error in finding accused Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Abad, Villarama, Jr.,* and Leonen, JJ., concur.
* Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per Raffle dated February 20, 2013.
1 Annex “A” of Petition, rollo, pp. 36-47. Penned by Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) with Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Associate Justice Roland B. Jurado, concurring.
2 Annex “B” of Petition, id. at 48-49.
12 Exhibit “A” for the Prosecution.
20 Annex “D” of Petition, id. at 71-74.
22 Id. at 14; see also p. 127.
23 Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
24Preysler, Jr. v. Manila Southcoast Development Corporation, G.R. No. 171872, June 28, 2010, 621 SCRA 636, 643.
26People v. Radam, Jr., 434 Phil. 87, 99 (2002), citing Quinao v. People, 390 Phil. 1092, 1100 (2000).
27Cabuslay v. People, 508 Phil. 236, 250 (2005), citing Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan, 235 Phil. 400, 410 (1987); Consing v. Court of Appeals, 257 Phil. 851, 859 (1989).
28Sazon v. Sandiganbayan, (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 150873, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 211, 219, citing Baldebrin v. Sandiganbayan, 547 Phil. 522, 533 (2007).
29Galang v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 145, 150-151 (2000).
30 People of the Philippines v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 496, 503, citing People v. Catbagan, 467 Phil. 1044, 1054 (2004).
31People of the Philippines v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 804, 814, citing People v. Gabrino, G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 187, 201.
32Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 176, 195, citing People of the Philippines v. Saul, 423 Phil. 924, 934 (2001).
34People v. Orias, G.R. No. 186539, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 417, 427.
37 People of the Philippines v. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 179278, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 480, 498, citing People v. Saragina, 388 Phil. 1, 23-24 (2000).
38Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 176, 195, citing People of the Philippines v. Tagana, 468 Phil. 784, 802 (2004).
39Belbis, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012, citing People v. Vicente, 452 Phil. 986, 998 (2003).
41Belbis, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, supra note 39.

References: v. 
 v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.