Araneta, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43527, July 3, 1990, 187 SCRA 123, 126, 133-134

 

Araneta, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43527, July 3, 1990, 187 SCRA 123, 126, 133-134

Should an accused who admittedly shot the victim but is shown to have inflicted only a slight wound be held accountable for the death of the victim due to a fatal wound caused by his co-accused? This is the focal issue addressed to this Court in this case.

In an Information filed before the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, 6th Judicial District on May 14, 1973, Eliseo Araneta, Jr. y Macute, herein petitioner, Benjamin Bautista y Mendoza, also a petitioner, Eden Ng y Dumantay and Joselito "Boy" Santiago were charged with murder for the death of one Manuel Esteban, Jr. due to multiple gun shot wounds on March 23, 1972.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1) Finding accused Eliseo Araneta, Jr. y Macute and Benjamin Bautista y Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of homicide and there being proved the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender without any aggravating circumstance to offset the same, the court sentences each one of them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased Manuel Esteban, Jr. the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of the latter; the sum of P20,000.00 by way of moral damages; the sum of P169,600.00 by way of consequential damages and to proportionately pay the costs.

2) Acquitting accused Eden Ng y Dumantay and Joselito Boy Santiago of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with costs de oficio. Their release is hereby ordered unless there is valid ground for further detaining them.

On February 20, 1976, the appellate court rendered its decision affirming the decision of the trial court with modification as to the civil liability of petitioners for the loss of earning capacity of the deceased by decreasing the same from the amount of P169,600.00 to only P43,200.00.

Eliseo Araneta, Jr. and Benjamin Bautista filed separate petitions for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which were consolidated per resolution of this Court dated September 6, 1976.

Petitioner Araneta, Jr. submits two legal issues for consideration, to wit:

I

ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND FINDINGS IN THE DECISION ITSELF, PETITIONER ARANETA CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE; BUT, AT MOST, ONLY OF SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES; and

HELD: The bullet fired from the gun of petitioner Araneta, Jr. only lacerated the skin and subcutaneous tissues, thus, its classification by Dr. Lucero as a slight injury. The bullet fired from the gun of petitioner Bautista lacerated the diaphragm, liver, ¹³ stomach and spleen proving to be fatal to the victim. There can be no other conclusion except that the "two gunshot wounds" indicated under the cause of death refer to the gunshot wounds of entry and exit located at the anterior right chest and the left lateral chest, respectively, produced by the gunshot fired by petitioner Bautista which lacerated the diaphragm, liver, stomach and spleen.

The gunshot wound inflicted by petitioner Araneta, Jr. was a slight wound which did not cause the death of the victim nor materially contributed to it in order that he may be held liable for homicide. ¹⁸ His liability should therefore be limited to the slight injury he caused. However, the fact that petitioner Araneta Jr. inflicted a gunshot wound on the victim shows the intent to kill. The use of a gun fired at another certainly leads to no other conclusion than that there is intent to kill. He is therefore liable for the crime of attempted homicide and not merely for slight physical injury.

II

ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND FINDINGS IN THE DECISION ITSELF, PETITIONER ARANETA SHOULD BE ACQUITTED ON THE GROUND OF SELF-DEFENSE AND/OR DEFENSE OF STRANGERS.

HELD: The rule is well-settled that an indispensable requirement of self-defense and defense of strangers under paragraphs 1 and 3, respectively, of Article 11, Revised Penal Code is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. ⁵ This element is not present in the case at bar

 Petitioner Bautista assigns the following errors:

I

WHETHER OR NOT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT COURT ARE NOT CLEARLY CONTRARY TO LAW OR JURISPRUDENCE.

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT IN ITS FINDINGS INDULGED IN SPECULATIONS, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR AND COMPLETELY UNWARRANTED BY THE EVIDENCE, CONTRARY TO LAW.

III

WHETHER OR NOT THE CONCLUSIONS OF RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT ARE GROUNDED ON MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS, AND WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

IV

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT AND THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

V

WHETHER OR NOT CIRCUMSTANCES OF WEIGHT AND INFLUENCE HAVE EITHER BEEN OVERLOOKED OR MISINTERPRETED, WHICH OTHERWISE WILL LEAD TO ACQUITTAL.⁴

Accused appellant was a policeman. He exerted all efforts to claw his way out – negative paraffin test 9 hours after the shooting incident, witness gave two conflicting statements to the Manila Police and the NBI, merely responded to the crime scene as a police officer after he heard the shots coming from the Sands Kitchenette.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 20, 1976 affirming with modification the decision of the trial court dated August 20, 1973 is hereby AFFIRMED as to the conviction of Benjamin Bautista y Mendoza for homicide, and MODIFIED as regards Eliseo Araneta, Jr. y Macute, who is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted homicide penalized under Article 249 in relation with Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, and considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender without any other attendant circumstances, petitioner Araneta, Jr. is imposed the penalty of imprisonment for ten (10) months of prision correccional.

The civil indemnity for the death of Manuel Esteban, Jr. is hereby increased from P12,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.

Benjamin Bautista is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased the damages as herein modified.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.