Facts:

On November 29, 1988, at approximately 7:30 PM, an incident occurred at Bautista's Food and Snack Inn located in Capitol Hills, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Philippines, leading to the death of CBL Leo Pilapil Salabao, a Philippine Constabulary (PC) member. The petitioner, Rudy Almeda, was charged with murder due to the intentional shooting of Salabao using a .45 caliber pistol, resulting in multiple fatal gunshot wounds. During the trial held at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tandag, Almeda pleaded not guilty. The lower court initially found him guilty only of homicide and acknowledged two mitigating circumstances. However, the prosecution sought reconsideration on the mitigating factors, leading to a modification of the judgment on July 23, 1992. The amended decision reaffirmed Almeda’s conviction of homicide without mitigating circumstances, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of confinement ranging from eight years and one day to fourteen years and eight months, in

...

Facts:

Incident and Charge

• Rudy Almeda was charged with murder for an incident allegedly occurring on November 29, 1988, at approximately 7:30 p.m. inside Bautista’s Food and Snack Inn at Capitol Hills, Tandag, Surigao del Sur.
• The information detailed a deliberate, premeditated act which involved shooting CBL Leo Pilapil Selabao—who was a member of the Philippine Constabulary—with a .45 caliber pistol. The fatal shooting produced multiple gunshot wounds in vital parts of the victim’s body.
• Despite the charge for murder, the lower court convicted Almeda only for homicide, finding no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in its initial trial decision.

Trial Court Proceedings and Modified Judgment

• During arraignment, Almeda pleaded not guilty. The trial court initially convicted him of homicide.
• The prosecution later sought reconsideration regarding the mitigating circumstances that had originally been appreciatively noted in Almeda’s favor.
• On July 23, 1992, the trial court modified its earlier decision by striking out the mitigating circumstances, ultimately sentencing the accused to an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal.
• In addition, Almeda was ordered to pay a total of ₱60,000.00 (comprising life indemnity and moral damages) to the victim’s heirs, and his bail bond for provisional liberty was cancelled.

Factual Background and Sequence of Events

• Preliminary facts as summarized by the Court of Appeals:
• On November 29, 1988, Julian Herrera, Jr. arrived at Bautista’s Snack Inn along with his nephews Donato Salabao and PC Constable Leo Salabao to fetch Susonte Montero.
• Inside the establishment, during a drinking session involving Vice Governor Acosta and his companions (including Almeda, then serving as the Vice Governor’s bodyguard), tensions surfaced.
• A dispute arose when Felix Amora, one of the Vice Governor’s drinking companions and then Community Development Officer and Civil Defense Coordinator, confronted CBL Leo Salabao over a saluting issue.
• The Altercation and Fatal Shooting
• Herrera intervened to calm the dispute. While the parties moved inside the establishment, tensions remained.
• A renewed argument between Herrera and Vice Governor Acosta occurred, during which Acosta whispered to Almeda.
• Acting swiftly, Almeda grabbed the barrel of the armalite rifle carried by CBL Salabao, pushed it down, and simultaneously drew his .45 caliber pistol, pointing it at Salabao’s head.
• Almeda then fired a shot to the left temple of Salabao and, as Salabao staggered, discharged five more shots, resulting in fatal injuries.
• Following the shooting, Almeda picked up Salabao’s armalite, cocked it, and pointed it at Donato Salabao, who raised his hands immediately.
• Apprehension
• The following morning, around 7:00 a.m., law enforcement officers apprehended Almeda following a search conducted by military personnel acting under orders.

Post-Trial and Appellate Proceedings

• The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the modified judgment of the lower court.
• Almeda subsequently raised issues relating to his claim of having acted in defense of strangers and his assertion that he voluntarily surrendered, as well as the contention that the victim’s actions should render the benefit of sufficient provocation.
• These issues became the focus of the appellate review.

Issue:

Defense of Strangers

• Whether the petitioner’s actions could be excused under the justifying circumstance of defense of strangers.
• Whether the requisite elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity, and absence of an evil motive were present to justify self-defense on behalf of a stranger.

Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary Surrender and Sufficient Provocation

• Whether there was sufficient provocation on the part of the victim that could mitigate the degree of the crime committed.
• Whether Almeda’s act of surrendering—if at all claimed—was voluntary, based on the evidence, or spurious given the circumstances of his apprehension.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)