G.R. No. 209741 - Social Security Commission vs. Azote

The case involves appellant Samson Viloria Calderon, a soldier of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, who was charged with homicide for the killing of Eustacio Rodil.
The incident occurred on the night of April 1, 1951, during a military operation in Santa Ana, Manila, aimed at apprehending Huk insurgents.
Viloria was deployed as part of a platoon under Lt. Leopoldo Regis in an area cordoned off due to suspicions that Huk leaders were hiding within.

A military raid was conducted through the Military Intelligence Service (MIS), with soldiers positioned in strategic locations, including along a square-type wire fence surrounding the lot and house No. 227 on Tejeron Street, where Eustacio Rodil resided.
Viloria was posted on the left flank of the cordon, squatting outside the fence in a depression or canal to monitor the situation.
The area was preconditioned by local security measures, including two electric lights (each with a 100-watt bulb) installed behind the house to deter previous attempts at burglary.

Around 11:00–12:00 PM, Benjamin, one of Eustacio’s sons, awakened to the sounds of barking dogs and noises resembling footsteps near the perimeter.
Benjamin observed a figure outside the cordon and called his sisters and nephew Bernardo to investigate; they then activated the two electric lights to illuminate the area behind the house.
For approximately fifteen minutes, Benjamin and Bernardo remained alert—throwing stones and making noise—to deter any intruder.
During this period, Eustacio, initially inside his house, descended holding an “army bolo,” a tool he customarily used for yard work, to verify the disturbances.

As Eustacio approached the area near the fence, he was reportedly heard engaging in conversation and issuing a warning to any trespassers.
Testimony from Viloria indicates that when Eustacio advanced, allegedly brandishing his bolo in an aggressive manner, Viloria issued three verbal orders to halt while identifying himself as a soldier.
Despite these orders, Eustacio allegedly “attacked” by swinging his bolo, prompting Viloria to fire a single shot.
Autopsy findings on Eustacio’s body revealed three entry wounds on the anterior left shoulder and one exit wound in the left scapular region, with the exit wound found lower than the entrance wound.

At trial, Viloria was convicted by the Court of First Instance of homicide through reckless negligence and was sentenced to an indeterminate confinement, as well as being ordered to indemnify the heirs of Eustacio Rodil.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and imposed a stiffer penalty, characterizing the killing as an act of homicide with reclusion temporal, rejecting the defense’s claim that the shot was fired under an uncontrollable fear or as a mistaken act of self-defense.
Key testimonies included Viloria’s account of being attacked by a man wielding a bolo and other witnesses (such as soldier Lemos and Benjamin) who provided details that both corroborated and challenged the narrative regarding conversations and positions during the incident.
Discrepancies arose in testimonies concerning whether Eustacio had issued warnings and whether he was indeed in an aggressive posture, with the Court of Appeals finding the defense narrative unconvincing.

The operational context involved intelligence reports about dangerous Huk elements in the area, including known Huk commanders like Nick Pamintuán, which heightened the soldiers’ alertness.
Despite these warnings, evidence indicated that the physical circumstances (e.g., proper lighting of Eustacio’s property and structural obstacles, such as the fence and surrounding vegetation) did not support the claim that Eustacio posed an imminent lethal threat.
Moreover, Viloria’s relatively recent enlistment and reportedly limited training were factors scrutinized against his claims of being taught to counter ambushes by Huks.

Whether Viloria’s decision to shoot was justified as an act of self-defense in response to an alleged attack.
Whether his belief that Eustacio was a Huk intruder was reasonable under the circumstances.

Whether the killing constitutes homicide with criminal intent or homicide through reckless negligence, particularly in light of the conflicting testimonies about the aggression allegedly shown by Eustacio.
Whether the deliberate act of firing the shot, as testified by Viloria, supersedes any claim of an honest mistake of fact.

Whether the inconsistencies in Viloria’s account, such as the description of his body position relative to the fence and the alleged verbal exchange with Eustacio, affect the credibility of his self-defense claim.
Whether the testimonies of other witnesses (Benjamin, Lemos, and Lt. Regis) corroborate or contradict Viloria’s narrative.

How the findings in related cases (e.g., People vs. Oanis, People vs. Fernando, People vs. Mamasalaya) should influence the classification of Viloria’s conduct.
Whether the legal principles concerning mistake of fact and the doctrine of self-defense sufficiently protect peace officers when operating under orders and in hazardous environments.

Whether Viloria’s status as a soldier, performing a duty under a military operation, can mitigate his criminal liability.
Whether the emotional stress and exigencies of the mission, coupled with his inexperience, warrant the extension of executive clemency.