G.R. No. 177927 - Quizon vs. Commission on Elections

Pambaya Bayambao was charged with the crime of murder for the death of the deceased.
The Court of First Instance of Lanao found him guilty and sentenced him to twenty years cadena temporal, along with the accessories of law, costs, and an indemnity to the deceased’s heirs amounting to P1,000.

The accused testified that while his wife was cooking, she alerted him by calling out that someone had thrown a stone at their house.
He immediately took his revolver and went downstairs to investigate the disturbance.
While near the staircase, he heard a noise and observed a “black figure” rushing at him with hands uplifted as if to strike.
In a state of panic and believing the figure was a malefactor, he fired his revolver.
After his shot, he called out for his brother-in-law, who then appeared with a light, revealing that the victim was in fact his own relative.
Upon recognizing the deceased, he embraced him and pleaded for forgiveness, explaining that both he and the victim had mistaken one another for outlaws.

The testimony of the deceased’s wife presented a version different from the accused’s.
According to her account, the accused had suggested that the deceased go down to check who was throwing stones at their house.
She described that, while the deceased was downstairs, the accused went down carrying an automatic revolver in his right hand and a flashlight in his left.
The accused allegedly inquired about the ownership of the hens and then focused his flashlight on the deceased.
The accused then shot the deceased; the deceased reportedly acknowledged being wounded.
When the deceased’s wife confronted him for his action, the accused responded in a threatening manner, warning her to remain silent.

An alleged ante-mortem declaration (document Exhibit B) claimed to have been made by the deceased; however, its authenticity was questioned because:

The justice of the peace and witness Urunaga stated that the statement was made by the deceased,
Constabulary Lieutenant Cramer, who arrived at the scene moments earlier, testified that the deceased was incapable of speaking at that time.

The inconsistencies in the alleged ante-mortem declaration led the court to consider it inadmissible as evidence, as it was uncorroborated and possibly not even made or acknowledged by the deceased.
Testimonies of Lieutenant Cramer and Sergeant Tumindog supported the accused’s version by affirming that immediately after the incident, he sought the assistance of the local commanding officer and medical help for the injured victim.
An alleged prior dispute between the accused and the deceased, as mentioned by the deceased’s widow, was not substantiated by the record and was inconsistent with their peaceful coexistence prior to the incident.

Whether the killing committed by the accused should be considered murder or an act committed in a moment of uncontrollable fear arising from an error in fact.
Whether the error in identifying the victim (mistaking him for an outlaw) was sufficient to invoke the exemption provided by Article 8, No. 10 of the Penal Code.
Whether the uncorroborated evidence, particularly the alleged ante-mortem declaration (Exhibit B), can be given any probatory value in establishing criminal intent.
Whether the totality of the evidence supports a finding of criminal liability or instead demonstrates that the act was accidental and devoid of malice.