G.R. No. 183871 - Rubrico vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

Simon A. Flores, then barangay chairman of San Roque, Alaminos, Laguna, was charged with homicide for the killing of Jesus Avenido.
The incident occurred on the night of August 15, 1989, during a local fiesta in Barangay San Roque.
Flores was charged under an Information alleging that while performing his official functions he willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to kill, shot Jesus Avenido with an M-16 Armalite rifle.
Jesus Avenido, a relative of the accused with familial ties to the witnesses, died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds which caused massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage and laceration of the liver.

The event unfolded during a drinking spree at the terrace of Jesus Avenido’s house, where several visitors, including Duran, Ronnie de Mesa, Noli de Mesa and others were present.
Flores arrived armed with an M-16 rifle around 8:30–11:00 p.m., and after some verbal exchange with Jesus, shots were fired.
Testimonies indicate that:

Duran observed that after some initial conversation, several gunshots caused panic, and he saw Jesus Avenido’s bloodied body on the ground.
Gerry Avenido testified that he saw Flores shooting from a distance and that after the first shot on the shoulder, Jesus fell, but Flores continued shooting.
Elisa Avenido recounted that she witnessed Flores approaching the terrace as her husband was already being shot and that afterward she had to rush him to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The autopsy, performed by Dr. Ruben Escueta, revealed four distinct gunshot wounds:

Flores contended that he acted in self-defense when confronted by Jesus Avenido.
According to his version:

During a ronda (patrolling duty) with members of the Civilian Action Force Group Unit (CAFGU) and Civil Service Unit (CSU), they encountered gunshots near the house of his cousin, Jesus.
Flores claimed that he was merely attempting to reason with Jesus by asking him and his guests to cease their shooting in order to save ammunition for the fiesta celebration the following day.
He asserted that Jesus, allegedly intoxicated, suddenly drew a magnum pistol, threatened him, and initiated the attack.
In the ensuing confrontation, after sustaining wounds from Jesus’s shots, he grabbed a baby armalite (handed to him by a companion) and fired in self-defense.

Flores admitted to having fired the shots but maintained that his actions were necessary to repel an unlawful aggression.
The defense evidence included Flores’s own testimony, witness statements from his ronda companions, and a physician’s account (Dr. Bagamasbad) which, however, was found to be hearsay.

Flores was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan, First Division, in its decision dated August 27, 2004.
The decision was rendered after due proceedings which included testimonies from both prosecution and defense witnesses, as well as documentary and autopsy evidence.
Flores filed a motion for reconsideration which was dismissed on November 29, 2007, on the ground that it was pro forma and lacked a notice of hearing.
He then petitioned the Supreme Court, raising multiple issues concerning errors in the Sandiganbayan’s decision and alleging violation of his right to due process.

Whether the denial of Flores’s motion for reconsideration—dismissed for lacking a notice of hearing—amounted to a violation of his due process rights.
Whether the omission of a notice of hearing rendered the motion a mere scrap of paper that did not toll the reglementary period for appeal.

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in not giving due credit to Flores’s claim of self-defense.
Whether there were reversible errors in the factual findings and conclusions drawn by the Sandiganbayan.
Whether the court committed a grave error in not acquitting Flores of the crime of homicide despite his self-defense argument.

The credibility of the defense’s evidence versus the prosecution’s consistent testimonies.
Whether the physical evidence (e.g., multiple gunshot wounds and the T-shirt with a hole and bloodstain pattern) supported Flores’s claim of self-defense.
The implications of Flores’s failure to secure medical evidence (such as an X-ray plate) or records to corroborate his account of being shot.