Case Digest (G.R. No. 181354)
Facts:
Simon A. Flores v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Simon A. Flores; respondent is the People of the Philippines. The case is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul the Sandiganbayan, First Division’s August 27, 2004 Decision convicting Flores of homicide and its November 29, 2007 Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration.Flores was charged by Information dated July 9, 1991 with having, on August 15, 1989, shot and caused the death of Jesus Avenido with an M-16 Armalite rifle; Flores pleaded not guilty at arraignment on August 26, 1991 and waived pre-trial. The prosecution presented four witnesses: Paulito Duran, Gerry Avenido (the victim’s son), Elisa Avenido (the victim’s wife), and Dr. Ruben Escueta (the medico-legal doctor who performed the autopsy). The defense presented Flores; CAFGU members Romulo Alquizar and Maximo H. Manalo; and Dr. Rene Bagamasbad.
The prosecution’s witnesses described Flores approaching the terrace where the victim and companions were drinking and, after a brief interchange, firing several shots that left Jesus dead; Dr. Escueta’s autopsy (Exh. A) showed four gunshot wounds and death from massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage due to liver laceration. Flores’s version invoked self-defense: he claimed he and CAFGU members were on ronda; he approached the terrace to ask the celebrants to stop firing; the victim allegedly drew a magnum, shot and wounded Flores twice, and in the ensuing wrestle Flores seized a “baby armalite” and fired, after which he fled and reported the incident.
On August 27, 2004 the Sandiganbayan convicted Flores of homicide, finding the prosecution witnesses credible, rejecting self-defense, and ordering criminal penalties and civil indemnities. The Sandiganbayan’s dispositive concluded Flores was “GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide” and imposed prison terms and damages. Flores filed a motion for reconsideration that lacked a notice of hearing; the Office of the Special Prosecutor moved to expunge it, and in a November 29, 2007 Resolution the Sandiganbayan treated the motion as pro forma and declared the judgment final and executory.
Flores elevated the ca...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan violate petitioner’s right to due process by dismissing his motion for reconsideration for lack of a notice of hearing?
- May this Court revisit the Sandiganbayan’s factual findings on the ground of palpable misapprehension where petitioner claims the ponente did not observe witnesses at trial?
- Did petitioner prove self-defense such that his conviction ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)