G.R. No. L-65762 - Frias, Jr. vs. People

On August 3, 1980, Bartolome Arellano, a local farmer, was fatally shot during an incident in Sta. Teresita, Cagayan.
The case centers on petitioners Gervacio Tacas, a seasoned police officer of 24 years, and Jose Frias, Jr., who faced charges for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by taking advantage of superior strength.

Edita Arellano, daughter of the deceased, testified that her father left home early in modest attire without a weapon and was later found dead in the vicinity with suspicious handling of his body by law enforcement personnel.
Francisco Arellano recounted witnessing the unfolding of the incident near a bridge where he observed Tacas and Frias with their firearms as Arellano, unarmed, tried to flee, and described conflicting details regarding their positions and actions.
Ricardo Bilag, a security guard, testified that he saw Bartolome Arellano being followed and shot by Tacas while identifying the positions of the accused and noting details about the weaponry involved, including specifications of a shotgun using buckshot.

Appellant Tacas testified that he was awakened by the sound of gunfire and a woman’s cry for help; upon looking out the window, he observed an injured man (Pajela) and later saw Bartolome Arellano armed with a shotgun proceeding towards a designated marker (the RIC marker).
Appellant Frias testified about hearing an explosion and observing Tacas urging Arellano to surrender, while also mentioning that Arellano was armed with a “bulldog” shotgun.
Additional corroboration was provided by witnesses such as Teodoro Paguirigan, Modesto Macarubbo, and Corporal Silvino Tabarrejo, who narrated that Arellano was armed with a shotgun and a bolo, and that he even fired warning shots or engaged in a shootout with Tacas during the confrontation.

The testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly that of Francisco Arellano, was found to be fraught with inconsistencies such as:

Varying distances from the scene, conflicting descriptions of Tacas’ attire (short pants versus briefs), and changing accounts of being present at the scene before and after the shooting.
Discrepancies concerning the number and timing of shots fired as well as the presence of other witnesses allegedly nearby.

Tacas, responding to an urgent call as a part of his duty, acted in a split-second scenario where the victim was not only armed but continued to pose a threat, thereby necessitating the use of warning shots and, ultimately, lethal force.
The evidence (including the recovery of pellets and an empty shell matching the gauge 12 weapon) supports the fact that Arellano was armed and had engaged in shooting at others, thus raising doubts over the claim that he was a defenseless victim.

For the prosecution, additional testimonies (from Manuel Pajela, Jaime Yerre, Jr. and Dr. Ferdinand Carino) pointed to a narrative where Arellano had shot and wounded individuals during a mahjong game, thereby linking the incident to a broader pattern of armed aggression.
The defense and the Solicitor General argued that the evidence, when objectively analyzed, established that Tacas acted in the fulfillment of his duty as a police officer in the face of an armed and aggressive suspect.
The conflicting presentations of evidence and witness credibility were central to the evaluation of both the self-defense claim and the possible conspiracy between Tacas and Frias in committing murder.

Whether Gervacio Tacas, by firing his weapon, acted in lawful self-defense or under the justifying circumstance of fulfilling his duty as a police officer.
Whether the use of lethal force, including warning shots and subsequent discharge, was a necessary consequence of the circumstances in which Tacas found himself.

The issue arising from the conflicting accounts provided by the prosecution witnesses (Edita Arellano, Francisco Arellano, and Ricardo Bilag) concerning the victim’s state (armed or unarmed) and the sequence of events.
Whether the inconsistencies in testimonies undermine the prosecution’s case and support the defense narrative.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Jose Frias, Jr. participated in a conspiracy with Tacas in the alleged killing of Arellano.
The necessity of proving that Frias’ actions were part of a premeditated plan as opposed to an accidental or defensive measure in support of Tacas.

The significance of recovered weapons, such as the shotgun with one empty shell, and forensic evidence (e.g., gauge 12 pellets) in determining whether Arellano was armed as claimed by the defense.
Whether the physical evidence corroborates the testimonies favoring the justification of the police action.