G.R. No. L-33320 - Gonzales vs. Philippine National Bank

On the evening of December 17, 1991, in Barangay Bugsukan, Butuan City, the accused, Federico Genita, Jr., was charged in an Information with attacks that resulted in the deaths of two persons: Jesus Bascon and Reynaldo Timbal.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, while drunk and armed with a high-powered M-14 rifle, intentionally attacked the victims with treachery and evident premeditation.
According to the Information, the accused first asked Reynaldo Timbal for a Christmas gift while the latter was loading firewood; after being told to return later, the accused departed and then returned to fire at the victims.

The incident occurred around 8:00 in the evening. The prosecution presented witness testimonies from Danilo Timbal, Vicente Olaco, and Dr. Elsie Caballero.
It was testified that:

The accused fired at Jesus Bascon, hitting his left then right leg.
Upon Reynaldo Timbal’s attempt to escape, the accused chased him and fired additional shots that hit his nape and right hand.
The sequence and multiplicity of shots indicated deliberate action rather than a single accidental discharge.

Medical evidence from Dr. Elsie Caballero and the Death Certificate by Dr. Raul Monton showed conflicting causes of death but supported that gunshot wounds led to fatal injuries.

The accused presented an accident defense, contending that he was a member of the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) and that his actions were the result of an accidental discharge.
He claimed that while en route to his camp, he was unexpectedly grabbed by the neck; in the ensuing struggle, he accidentally pulled the trigger.
The defense further asserted that he had no intention of firing deliberately, was not in a critical area, and promptly reported the incident—thus alleging that the requisite elements of deliberate and intentional killing were absent.

In the trial court proceeding (Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Butuan City, Criminal Case No. 4954), the accused pleaded not guilty but was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of murder.
The court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, with each sentence to run successively and mandated additional indemnification to the heirs of each victim.
On appeal, the accused challenged:

The trial court’s failure to accord sufficient exculpatory weight to the alleged accident (an exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code).
The finding of treachery without clear evidence showing the victims had no chance to defend themselves.

Whether the trial court erred in not giving full exculpatory weight to the defense’s claim of accident as an exempting circumstance.

Did the evidence clearly demonstrate that the accused acted with due care, or was the accidental discharge claim merely a fabrication?
Was the defense’s burden of proving that the act was performed with lawful care sufficiently met by the circumstances and evidence presented?

Whether the trial court incorrectly found the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Was there clear and convincing evidence that the accused employed means or methods in the commission of the crime that insulated him from any risk of retaliation or defense by the victims?
Could the sequence of events—such as the multiple gunshot wounds and subsequent actions—be reconciled with an accidental discharge rather than deliberate, treacherous behavior?

Whether the conventional assessment of witness credibility and the trial court’s factual findings should have been disturbed by the appellate court.

Did the trial court have the benefit of direct observation of witnesses’ testimonies, thereby warranting deference to its findings?