G.R. No. 125185 - People vs. Borreros

On or about February 8, 1990, in Quezon City, the accused Virgilio Borreros was involved in a shooting incident during a mahjong session at a residential premises (mahjongan).
The incident resulted in the killing of two individuals: Federico G. Medina and Danilo E. Almario.

The Information filed by Assistant City Prosecutor Mercedes D. Penamora charged Borreros with murder (of Federico G. Medina, qualified by treachery) and homicide (of Danilo E. Almario).
Prosecution evidence included witness testimonies from Arturo Ibarrientos (a tricycle driver), Faustino Varona (a mahjong player), and two doctors, Dr. Dario Gajardo and Dr. Maximo Reyes, who conducted the autopsies revealing:

Federico G. Medina sustained two gunshot wounds (one in the head and one in the left forearm).
Danilo E. Almario suffered four gunshot wounds on various parts (back, right forearm, left thigh, and left femur).

According to the account, Borreros was seen carrying a gun as he approached the mahjongan and ultimately fired at the unsuspecting victims, triggering a fracas among those present.
The shooting was characterized by its suddenness, with witnesses noting that Borreros yelled a command (“come on pare, he is already dead”) immediately after the shots.

At arraignment, Borreros entered a negative plea and later testified that he was merely trying to defend himself.
His testimony claimed:

He encountered Federico Medina, who was his childhood friend, at the mahjongan as he was on his way home after working as a golf caddie.
An altercation ensued when Medina, allegedly drunk, provoked and attempted to strike him with a rattan stick.
After a brief chase and confrontation, Borreros claimed he disarmed Medina by seizing his gun, and in an act of self-defense, he shot Medina.
Regarding Danilo Almario, Borreros stated that he fired warning shots when Almario, positioned at the back of Medina and armed with a batuta, moved to attack him.

Additional testimonies from defense witnesses, Nita Labadia and Aurora Zapanta, provided details that:

Placed all three (Borreros, Medina, Almario) at the scene during a mahjong session.
Claimed that Borreros was harassed by Medina and that efforts of self-defense were made as a response to an unprovoked assault, though certain details (such as the recovery of golf balls and entry into the house) were inconsistent and later contradicted by Borreros himself.
Denied conflicting descriptions offered by prosecution witnesses regarding the presence and actions of others like Arturo Ibarrientos.

The trial court, Branch 225 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, found Borreros guilty of:

Murder (involving Federico G. Medina) with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Homicide (involving Danilo E. Almario), with the indeterminate penalty prescribed by law.

The court imposed penalties including reclusion perpetua for the murder, an indeterminate sentence for homicide, and civil indemnities of P50,000.00 for each victim.
Post-conviction, Borreros appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Borreros’ plea of self-defense, given his contention that he acted to protect himself from unlawful aggression.
Whether the elements required for self-defense (unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity, and lack of provocation) were properly examined and whether the onus was met by the accused.

Whether the trial court improperly found that treachery attended the killing of Federico G. Medina.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Borreros deliberately employed treacherous means to eliminate any risk of retaliation.

Whether it was proper for the trial court to order Borreros to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of each victim under the provisions of the Civil Code without further proof of damages.
Whether the imposition of compensatory damages as a matter of law is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.